Skip to main content

Full text of "The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society"

See other formats 


THE 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE, 


JOURNAL  OF  THE  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY. 


f   AND 

JOURNAL 


NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY. 


EDITED    BY 

SIR  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Sc.D.,  F.R.S.,  V.P.S.A., 

CORBESPONDANT   DE   L'lNSTJTUT   DB   FRANCE, 

BARCLAY  V.  HEAD,  D.C.L.,  PH.D., 

KBEPEB  OF  COINS,    BEITI8H   MUSEUM, 

MEMBER   OF  THE   IMPEETAL  GERMAN   ARCHAEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTE, 
HON.   MEMBER  OP   THE   NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY   OF  VIENNA, 

HERBERT    A.  GRUEBER,   F.S.A., 

A8SI8TANT-KEEPEB  OP  COINS,  BBITISH  MUSEUM, 
AND 

EDWARD  J.  RAPSON,  M.A.,  M.R.A.S. 


FOURTH  SERIES.— VOL.  I. 

V 


' 


Factum  abiit — monumenta  manent. — Ov.  Fast. 

LONDON : 
BERNARD   QUARITCH,  15,  PICCADILLY. 

PARIS:  MM.  EOLLIN  ET  FEUARDENT,  PLACE  LOUVOIS,  No.  4. 

1901. 


V. 


LONDON : 

PRINTED   BY    H.    VIRTUE   AND    COMPANY,   LIMITED, 
CITY   ROAD. 


NUMISMATIC    HISTORY 

OF  THE  REIGN   OF 

HENRY  I. 

(1100—1135) 


BY 

W.  J.  ANDREW, 

OF  CADSTEE,  WHALEY  BRIDGE. 


PLATES.  Vll 


LIST  OF  PLATES  CONTAINED  IN  VOL.  I. 

Plates 

I.  Seal  of  Henry  I. 
II.— VIII.  Coins  of  Henry  I. 


PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE    NUMISMATIC 
SOCIETY. 


SESSION  1900—1901. 

OCTOBER  18,  1900. 

SIR  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Sc.D.,  F.B.S.,  F.S.A., 
F.G.S.,  President,  in  the  Chair. 

Alfred  Charles  Cronin,  Esq.,  was  proposed,  and  Stephen  W. 
Bushell,  Esq.,  M.D.,  C.B.,  was  admitted  a  Member  of  the 
Society. 

The  following  Presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table  : — 

1.  Revue  Suisse  de  Numismatique.     Vol.  ix.  2me  livr. 

2.  Monatsblatt   der  Numismatischen  Gesellschaft  in  Wien. 
Nos.  202-206. 

8.  Monete  Romane,  2da  ediz.  By  F.  Gnecchi.  From  the 
Publisher,  Sig.  Ulrico  Hoepli. 

4.  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland, 
1898-1899. 

5.  Les  Monnaies  Sino-Kharoshthi,  and  Une  Monnaie  bilingue 
Indo-Sassanide.     By  E.  Drouin.     From  the  Author. 

6.  L'Art  du  Medailleur  en  Belgique.     By  Julien  Simonis, 
From  the  Author. 

a 


A  PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

7.  Photographs  of  the  Casa  dei  Vetti  at  Pompoii.     From  Sir 
John  Evans,  K.C.B.,  President. 

8.  Revue  Beige  de  Numismatique.     3me  et  4me  livr.,  1900. 

9.  Revue  Numismatique.     2me  et  3me  trim.,  1900. 

10.  Tiers  de  Blanc  anonyme  frappe  a  Herpen.     By  Vicomte 
B.  de  Jonghe.     From  the  Author. 

11.  Bulletin  historique  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  la 
Morinie.     Livr.  194 

12.  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Irish  Academy.    Vol.  v.   No.  5. 

13.  Rivista  Italiana  di  Numismatica.  Vol.  xiii.  Fasc.  2, 1900. 

14.  Bulletin  de  Numismatique.     Mai — Aout,  1900. 

15.  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies.     Vol.  xx. 

16.  The  Canadian  Antiquarian.     Vol.  ii.     Nos.  2 — 4. 

17.  Catalogue  of    Greek   coins   in   the   British  Museum — 
Lycaonia,  Isauria,  and    Cilicia.     By  G.  F.  Hill.     From  the 
Trustees  of  the  British  Museum. 

18.  La    Gazette    Numismatique.     Nos.  6 — 10,   4m    annee, 
and  No.  1,  5me  anne"e. 

19.  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  1'Ouest.     lre  et 
2me  trim.,  1900. 

20.  Report  on  the  Government  Museum  at  Madras,  1899 — 
1900. 

21.  American  Journal  of  Archaeology.     Vol.  iv.     No.  1. 

22.  Steirische  Miinzkunde.     By  F.  Pickler.     From  Sir  John 
Evans,  K.C.B.,  President. 

The  meeting  approved  an  Address  of  Condolence  to  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Italy  on  the  recent  assassination  of  his 
illustrious  Father,  and  directed  that  it  should  be  signed  on 
behalf  of  the  Society  by  the  President  and  the  Hon.  Secretaries. 

Mr.  Augustus  Prevost,  F.S.A.,  exhibited  a  New  Jersey  Con- 
federate cent  with  a  figure  of  an  Indian  on  the  obverse  and  sun 
and  stars  on  the  reverse,  the  dies  for  which  are  said  to  have 
been  engraved  by  Thomas  Wyon. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  exhibited  a  penny  of  Ceolwulf  I  of 
Mercia  with  the  moneyer's  name  "  Oba,"  and  casts  of  an 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  O 

identical  piece  in  the  Hunter  collection,  and  specimens  of  the  Can- 
terbury sede  vacante  series,  all  bearing  the  same  moneyer's  name  ; 
and  also  a  half-noble  of  Edward  III  with  different  styles  of 
lettering  on  the  obverse  and  reverse. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Walters  showed  a  pattern  half-sovereign  of  Edward 
VI  with  the  bare  head,  and  having  the  "  Timor  Domini"  legend 
on  the  obverse. 

Mr.  Talbot  Eeady  exhibited  a  hecte  of  Lesbos  with  the  head 
of  Pallas,  and  on  the  reverse  two  female  (?)  heads  facing  each 
other,  but  one  superimposed. 

Mr.  H.  A.  Grueber  showed  the  South  African  medal  lately 
issued  by  the  mint  at  Birmingham,  and  the  work  of  Emil  Fuchs. 

The  President  exhibited  a  photograph  of  a  large  rilievo  which 
is  now  in  the  Forum  at  Eome,  and  which  illustrates  the  remis- 
sion of  taxes  by  the  Emperor  Trajan  and  the  burning  of  the 
deeds  (claria)  connected  with  them.  Attention  was  drawn  to 
coins  of  Hadrian  recording  a  similar  event  during  his  reign. 
The  legend  on  these  coins,  "  reliqua  vetera  sestertium  novies 
millies  abolita,"  shows  that  the  sum  remitted  by  Hadrian  was 
upwards  of  seven  millions  sterling. 

Mr.  Samuel  Smith  gave  an  account  of  the  Soudanese  coinage 
struck  by  the  Mahdi  and  the  late  Khalifa,  Abdullah.  The 
coinage  began  in  A.H.  1302  (=  A.D.  1884),  and  consisted  of  the 
100  piastres  in  gold,  a  servile  copy  of  the  Egyptian  pound,  and 
the  medjidieh  of  20  piastres  in  silver.  These  were  the 
only  pieces  issued  by  the  Mahdi;  but  his  successor,  the 
Khalifa,  struck  pieces  of  20,  10,  5,  and  2£  piastres  in  silver, 
and  of  10  paras  in  copper,  but  no  gold.  At  first  the  silver 
coins  were  of  pure  metal,  but  the  Khalifa  soon  began  to  debase 
the  coinage,  so  that  in  a  few  years  it  degenerated  into  mere 
pieces  of  copper  washed  with  silver.  The  latest  pieces  known 
are  of  A.H.  1315  (=  A.D.  1897). 


4  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 

NOVEMBEB  15,  1900. 

SIB  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  President,  in  the  Chair. 

Alfred  Charles  Cronin,  Esq.,  was  elected  a  Member.  The 
Eight  Hon.  John  Lubbock,  Baron  Avebury,  and  Kobert 
Nicholas  Roskell,  Esq.,  were  proposed,  and  F.  G.  Hilton- 
Price,  Esq.,  F.S.A.,  and  Dr.  Philip  Nelson,  were  admitted 
Members  of  the  Society. 

The  following  Presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table  : — 

1.  Journal  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Ireland. 
Vol.  xxx.     Part  III. 

2.  Rivista  Italiana  di  Numismatica.  Vol.  xiii.   Fasc.  3,  1900. 
8.  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological  Society.     Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Annual  Meeting,  1900. 

4.  Monatsblatt  der  Numismatischen  Gesellschaft  in  Wien. 
No.  207. 

5.  Aarboger  for  Nordisk  Oldkyndighed  og  Historic.     Bind 
xv.  Heft  1—2. 

6.  La  Gazette  Numismatique.     No.  2,  1900. 

The  President  reported  that  he  had  received  from  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Italy,  through  the  Master  of  the  House- 
hold, a  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  Address  of  Condolence 
voted  at  the  previous  meeting. 

Mr.  P.  Carlyon-Britton  exhibited  a  series  of  unpublished 
Anglo-Saxon  pennies  of  ^Ethelstan,  Eadwig,  and  Eadgar  from 
his  collection. 

Dr.  P.  Nelson  showed  a  proof  penny  of  the  Isle  of  Man  of 
1723,  a  proof  farthing  of  1696,  a  half-penny  of  1718  struck 
over  a  shilling  of  William  III,  and  a  proof  in  gold  of  the  gun- 
money  half-crown  of  April,  1690. 

Mr.  L.  Forrer  exhibited  a  gold  coin  or  presentation  piece  of 
the  Maharaja  of  Travancore,  dated  1881,  and  bearing  his  por- 
trait and  arms,  also  a  series  of  gold  coins  of  the  same  state. 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY. 

Mr.  Talbot  Ready  showed  a  tridrachm  of  Byzantium  with 
the  bull  on  the  obverse,  and  on  the  reverse  Hercules  strangling 
the  serpents,  as  on  the  alliance  coins  of  Ehodes,  Cnidus, 
Ephesus,  Samos,  &c. 

The  President  read  a  paper  on  the  first  gold  coins  of  Eng- 
land, the  issues  referred  to  being  the  penny  of  Henry  III  and 
the  florin  and  its  parts  of  Edward  III.  See  vol.  xx.  p.  218. 


DECEMBER  20,  1900. 
SIR  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  President,  in  the  Chair. 

The  Right  Hon.  John  Lubbock,  Baron  Avebury,  and  Robert 
Nicholas  Roskell,  Esq.,  were  elected,  and  Alfred  Charles 
Cronin,  Esq.,  was  admitted  a  Member  of  the  Society. 

The  following  Presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table  : — 

1.  Monatsblatt   der  Numismatischen  Gesellschaft  in  Wien. 
No.  208. 

2.  The  Natural  History  of  Phosphatic  Deposits  and  Naphe- 
line-Syenite  and  its  Associates  in  the  North-West  of  Scotland. 
By  J.  J.  H.  Teall.     From  the  Author. 

3.  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Irish  Academy.    Vol.  vi.  No.  1. 

4.  Bulletin  Historique  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  la 
Morinie.     Livr.  195. 

5.  American  Journal  of  Archaeology.     Vol.  iv.  Nos.  2 — 3. 

6.  Bulletin  de  Numismatique.     Sept. — Oct.,  1900. 

7.  Plans  and  Drawings  of  Athenian  Buildings.     By  J.  H. 
Middleton  and  E.  A.  Gardner.     From  the  Hellenic  Society. 

8.  The  Origin,    Development,   and   Aims   of  our   Scientific 
Societies.     By  Sir  John  Evans,  K.C.B.,  President. 

9.  Archseologia  Aeliana.     Vol.  xxii.     Part  II. 

The  President  exhibited  a  Bristol  copper  token  of  the  six- 


6  PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

teenth  century,  which  had  been  found  in  Pitstone  Churchyard, 
near  Tring,  together  with  silver  coins  of  Elizabeth. 

Mr.  C.  H.  Bead,  F.S.A.,  exhibited  a  circular  lead  weight, 
stamped  with  a  fleur-de-lis  between  the  letters  G  D,  and  with 
a  representation  of  the  reverse  type  of  the  English  halfpenny 
of  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century,  but  bearing  the  inscrip- 
tion POIS  D'ESTERLIN.  It  weighs  7,583  grains,  or  500 
sterlings  of  15-16  grains  each,  the  weight  of  the  penny  from 
Henry  IV  to  Edward  IV  being  at  15  grains. 

Mr.  Thomas  Bliss  showed  proofs  in  silver  and  pewter  of  the 
gun-money  crown  of  James  II,  and  a  proof  in  silver  of  the  half- 
crown,  and  also  a  specimen  in  gold  of  the  badge  of  a  club 
called  "  The  Order  of  Blue  and  Orange,"  which  was  formed 
about  1727  by  officers  of  the  King's  Own  Eegiment  of  Foot  to 
uphold  the  succession  of  the  house  of  Hanover.. 

Mr.  A.  E.  Copp  showed  a  Newark  shilling  with  the  hall-mark 
for  1640. 

Mr.  Warwick  Wroth  communicated  a  paper  on  "The  Re- 
arrangement of  Parthian  Coinage."  The  arrangement  of  this 
difficult  series  generally  accepted  is  that  proposed  by  Professor 
Percy  Gardner  in  his  monograph  on  the  subject  published  in 
1877.  Since  that  date  a  number  of  important  discoveries  have 
been  made,  especially  of  tetradrachms  having  a  marked  resem- 
blance in  type  and  fabric  to  the  contemporary  Seleucid  coinage. 
Mr.  Wroth  pointed  out  that  the  new  evidence  derived  from 
this  source  made  some  of  Professor  Gardner's  conclusions  un- 
tenable, and  gave  reasons  for  what  seemed  to  him  to  be  the 
most  probable  order  of  succession  of  the  a  rthian  coins  from 
the  beginning  of  the  kingdom  down  to  the  reign  of  Phraates 
IV.  See  vol.  xx.,  p.  181. 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY. 


JANUARY  17,  1901. 

SIR  HENRY  H.  HOWORTH,  K.C.I.E.,  F.R.S.,  Vice-President, 
in  the  Chair. 

Lionel  Lawford  Fletcher,  Esq.,  and  Frank  E.  Macfadyen, 
Esq.,  were  proposed  as  Members  of  the  Society. 

The  following  presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table : — 

1.  Zeitschrift  fiir  Numismatik.     Band  xxii.     Heft  4. 

2.  Foreningen   til  Norske  Fortidsmindesmerkers  Bevaring. 
Aarsberetning  for  1898. 

3.  Kunst  og  Handwork  fra  Norges   Fortid.     Part  IV. 

4.  Medals,  Jetons,  and  Tokens,  illustrative  of  the  Science  of 
Medicine  (continuation).     By   Dr.   H.    R.  Storer.     From  the 
Author. 

5.  Numismatic  Circular.     Vol.  VIII.     1900.     From  Messrs. 
Spink  and  Son. 

6.  Archaeologia   Cantiana.      Vol.    xxiv.      From   the    Kent 
Archaeological  Society. 

7.  Revue  Numismatique.     4me  livr.,  1900. 

8.  Revue  Beige  de  Numismatique.     lre  livr.,  1901. 

9.  Proces-Verbaux  du  Congres  international  de  Numisma- 
tique.    1900.        From  Lady  Evans. 

10.  Le  Role  de  la  Numismatique   dans  le  Mouvement  Scien- 
tifique  Contemporain.     By  E.  Gabrici.     From  the  Author. 

11.  Le    Dati    delle     Monete    d'Augusto.     By   G.  Dattari. 
From  the  Author. 

12.  Un   Demi-Gros    a  1'Ecu    frappe    a    Schoonvorst.     By 
Vicomte  B.  de  Jonghe.     From  the  Author. 

18.  Monatsblatt  der  Numismatischen  Gesellschaft  in  Wien. 
No.  209. 

14.  La  Gazette  Numismatique.     Dec.  1900. 

Mr.  W.  J.  Andrew   exhibited   two  pennies  of  David  I   of 


8  PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE 

Scotland,  struck  at  Edinburgh  and  Roxburgh,  of  similar  type 
to  coins  of  Stephen,  having  the  bust  with  sceptre  on  the  obverse 
and  a  cross  moline  with  lis  on  the  reverse.  As  these  two 
coins  were  in  the  Nottingham  hoard,  they  must  have  been 
issued  before  1141. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  exhibited  a  piece  of  Chinese  sycee 
"  Shoe  Money,"  of  the  value  of  10  taels  ;  a  rupee  of  the 
British  East  Africa  Company,  and  a  mis-struck  sovereign  of  the 
Perth  Mint  in  Australia. 

Mr.  L.  Forrer  showed  a  Swiss  twenty-franc  piece  of  1897 
coined  from  gold  obtained  from  the  Gondo  Mine,  Graubiinden. 
To  distinguish  the  coins  struck  from  this  gold  from  others 
issued  by  the  Swiss  Mint,  a  small  cross  is  placed  on  the 
Federal  cross  on  the  reverse. 

Mr.  W.  J.  Hocking  exhibited  specimens  of  the  new  silver 
coinage  for  Cyprus,  consisting  of  pieces  of  the  current  values 
of  eighteen,  nine,  four  and  a-half,  and  three  piastres,  equivalent 
to  the  English  florin,  shilling,  sixpence,  and  fourpence. 

Mr.  W.  J.  Webster  exhibited  a  pattern  penny  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  made  in  1888. 

Mr.  P.  Carlyon-Britton  read  a  paper  on  some  coins  of 
Bedwin  and  Marlborough  in  Wilts.  The  only  known  coins  of 
the  former  mint  are  of  the  reigns  of  Edward  the  Confessor  and 
William  I,  and  the  only  moneyer's  name  which  appears  on 
them  is  "  Cilda,"  who  was  transferred  to  Marlborough  soon 
after  A.D.  1066,  when  the  Bedwin  mint  ceased  operations. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  read  a  paper  on  a  find  of  silver  coins 
extending  from  Edward  IV  to  Henry  VIII.  The  hoard  con- 
sisted mainly  of  groats  of  the  second  issue  of  Henry  VIII,  and 
the  evidence  offered  by  them  suggested  a  slight  change  in  the 
order  of  the  mint-marks,  viz.,  the  placing  of  the  pheon  mark 
towards  the  end  rather  than  towards  the  beginning  of  the 
issue.  From  the  portrait  of  the  king  on  these  groats  Mr.  Law- 
rence was  in  favour  of  an  earlier  date  than  1526  for  the  com- 
mencement of  the  second  issue ;  but  in  a  discussion  which 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  9 

ensued  Mr.  Grueber  pointed  out  that  as,  with  one  exception, 
all  the  mint-marks  of  the  silver  coins  occurred  on  the  gold 
crowns  and  half-crowns,  which  were  not  ordered  till  1526, 
both  coinages  must  have  been  contemporaneous. 


FEBRUARY  21,  1901. 

SIR  HENRY  H.  HOWORTH,  K.C.I.E.,  F.R.S.,  Vice-President,  in 
the  Chair. 

Lionel  Lawford  Fletcher,  Esq.,  and  Frank  E.  Macfadyen, 
Esq.,  were  elected  Members  of  the  Society.  The  Rev.  Cooper 
Kennett  Henderson  was  nominated  and  Robert  Nicholas 
Roskell,  Esq.,  was  admitted  a  Member. 

The  following  presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table  :— 

1.  Rivista  Italiana  di  Numismatica.     Fasc.  4,  1900. 

2.  Monatsblatt  der  Numismatischen    Gesellschaft  in  Wien. 
No.  211. 

3.  La  Gazette  Numismatique.       No.  5.     1901. 

4.  Additional  corns  of  the  Present  Dynasty  of  China.     By 
Stephen  W.  Bushell,  Esq.,  M.D.,  C.B.     From  the  Author. 

5.  Classement  des  Monnaies  Carolingiennes,  and  La  Numis- 
matique de  Louis  XVHI  dans  les   Provinces  Beiges.     By  P. 
Bordeaux.     From  the  Author. 

6.  Bulletin  historique  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  la 
Morinie.     196  livr. 

7.  Journal  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Ireland. 
4th  quarter.     1900. 

8.  Transactions  of  the  Japan  Society.     1898-9. 

9.  Bulletin  de  Numismatique.     Nov. — Dec.,  1900. 

10.  Foreningen  til  Norske  Fortidsmindesmerkers  Bevaring. 
Aarsberetning  for  1899. 

b 


10  PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

The  meeting  approved  an  Address  of  Condolence  to  His 
Majesty  the  King  on  the  death  of  the  late  Queen,  and  of  con- 
gratulation on  His  Majesty's  accession  to  the  throne. 

The  Hon.  Secretary,  Mr.  H.  A.  Grueber,  exhibited  a  small 
silver  coin  of  the  British  chief  Verica,  which  had  been  found 
near  Challow,  in  Berks,  and  is  the  property  of  Mr.  J.  N.  Barnes, 
of  Lambourne.  It  has  on  the  obverse  a  laureate  head,  similar  to 
that  on  the  coins  of  Tiberius,  and  the  legend  VERIO,  and  on  the 
reverse  o.  F.  (CommiiFilius)  within  a  torque.  See  Vol.  xx.,p.  264. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  showed  two  half- groats  of  London, 
belonging  to  the  heavy  coinage  of  Edward  IV,  and  therefore 
struck  before  his  fourth  year. 

Mr.  T.  Bliss  exhibited  some  very  rare  siege  pieces  of  Beeston 
Castle,  Carlisle,  and  Scarborough,  struck  during  the  reign  of 
Charles  I,  and  of  Pontefract  under  Charles  II,  the  last  piece 
being  dated  1648. 

Mr.  W.  C.  Boyd  showed  an  unpublished  farthing  token  of 
Charles  I,  having  the  sceptres  within  the  inner  circle  and  a  bird 
for  mint-mark. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Walters  read  a  paper  on  the  last  silver  coinage 
(1869-77)  of  Edward  III,  in  which  he  described  several  groats 
belonging  to  a  transitional  period,  which  proved  that  the 
resumption  of  the  title  of  King  of  France  on  the  coinage  by 
Edward  did  not  immediately  follow  the  violation  of  the  Treaty 
of  Bretigny.  He  also  showed  that  annulet  stops  continued  to 
be  used  on  the  last  coinage,  and  transferred  to  this  period  a 
Durham  penny  which  hitherto  had  been  classed  to  a  date  pre- 
vious to  1860. 


MARCH  21,  1901. 

BIR  HENRY  H.  HOWORTH,  K.C.I.E.,  F.R.S.,  Vice-President, 
in  the  Chair. 

The   Rev.    Cooper    Kennett    Henderson   was   elected,   and 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  11 

Lionel  Lawford  Fletcher,  Esq.  was  admitted  a  Member  of  the 
Society. 

The  following  presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table  :— 

1.  Appunti  di  Numismatica  Alessandrina.      By  GK  Dattari. 
From  the  Author. 

2.  Un  Dirhem  Inconnu.     By  Baron  W.  von  Tiesenhausen. 
From  the  Author. 

3.  La  Gazette  Numismatique.     No.  6,  Mars,  1901. 

4.  American    Journal  of  Archaeology.      No.  4,   1900,  and 
Annual  Report. 

5.  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  1'Ouest.  8me  trim., 
1901. 

6.  Bonner  Jahrbiicher.     Heft  106. 

7.  Annual  of  the  British  School  at  Athens.     No.  VI. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  exhibited  a  series  of  pennies  of  Henry  I, 
showing,  with  one  exception,  all  the  types  used  during  his 
reign. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Walters  showed  a  half-groat,  struck  at  York  by 
Archbishop  Bainbridge,  and  a  half-groat  and  a  penny  of  Can- 
terbury, issued  by  Archbishop  Wareham.  All  the  coins 
belonged  to  the  first  issue  of  Henry  VIII. 

Mr.  T.  Bliss  exhibited  a  crown,  half-crown,  shilling,  and 
fourpence  of  the  Irish  Inchiquin  money ;  a  Dublin  crown  of 
the  same  period,  and  two  siege-piece  shillings  of  Colchester. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Pritchard  showed  a  square  Bristol  farthing  of  the 
sixteenth  century. 

Mr.  Grueber  read  a  paper,  by  M.  A.  Blanchet  and  himself, 
on  "  Treasure-Trove,  its  Laws  and  Customs."  M.  Blanchet 
gave  an  account  of  the  law  of  treasure-trove  during  Roman 
imperial  times  in  Italy,  and  at  a  more  recent  date  in  France. 
In  the  latter  case  he  pointed  out  that  customary  rights  in  many 
districts  invalidated  any  claim  of  the  sovereign  to  treasure- 
trove.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Grueber  showed  that,  unless  by 


12  PROCEEDINGS   OF    THE 

special  grant,  the  Crown  had  never  relaxed  its  privilege,  and  as 
evidence  referred  to  the  laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  Wil- 
liam I,  and  Henry  I,  and  to  permissions  to  seek,  for  treasure 
specially  granted  in  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth,  and  seventeenth 
centuries.  Mr.  Grueber  also  referred  to  the  recent  regulation 
of  H.M.  Treasury  under  which  finders  not  only  are  awarded 
the  coins  and  objects  not  required  for  the  national  institutions, 
but  also  the  antiquarian  value  of  such  as  may  be  retained, 
minus  twenty-five  or  ten  per  cent.,  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  objects. 


APRIL  18,  1901. 
SIR  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  President  in  the  Chair. 

The  Rev.  Cooper  Kennett  Henderson  was  admitted,  and 
Stewart  A.  McDowall,  Esq.  and  Percy  Henry  Webb,  Esq. 
were  proposed  as  Members  of  the  Society. 

The  following  presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table  : — 

1.  Revue  Beige  de  Numismatique.     2me  livr.,  1901. 

2.  Monatsblatt   der  Numismatischen   Gesellschaft  in  Wien. 
No.  212. 

3.  Revue  Numismatique.     ler  trim.,  1901. 

4.  Aarboger  for  Nordisk  Oldkyndighed  og  Historie.  Bind  xv. 
Heft  3-4,  1900. 

5.  Journal  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Ireland. 
Vol.  xxxi.     Part  I. 

6.  Les  Monnaies  des  derniers  Comtes  de  Reckheim.      By 
Vicomte  B.  de  Jonghe.     From  the  Author. 

7.  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies.     Vol.  xxi.     Pt.  I. 

8.  Annual  Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution.     1898. 
The  President  exhibited  a  series  of  aurei,  in  splendid  con- 
dition, of  Pertinax,  Septimius  Severus,  Julia  Domna,  Caracalla, 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  13 

Geta,  etc. ;  also  a  copper  coin  of  Athens  of  imperial  times 
showing  on  the  reverse  a  military  figure  placing  a  Persian  cap- 
tive before  a  trophy,  supposed  to  be  copied  from  a  relief  on  the 
memorial  erected  to  those  who  fell  at  Marathon. 

Mr.  L.  Bardasano  sent  for  exhibition  a  photograph  of  a  large 
and  unique  silver  medal  engraved  with  the  scene  of  a  naval 
action,  which  was  awarded  to  John  Breton,  a  Guernsey  pilot, 
who,  on  June  8th,  1794,  by  skilful  seamanship,  prevented  the 
capture,  off  Guernsey,  of  H.M.S.  Eurydice  by  a  French 
squadron.  The  medal  was  presented  to  Breton  by  Major- 
Gen.  Small,  the  Lieutenant-Govern  or  of  the  Island. 

Mr.  P.  Carlyon-Britton  read  a  paper  "  On  the  Coins  of  Wil- 
liam I  and  II  and  the  Sequence  of  the  Types."  After  referring 
to  the  law  of  Monetagium,  which  restricted  a  change  of  type  in 
the  coinage  to  every  third  year,  the  writer  proceeded  to  classify 
the  coins  in  their  chronological  order,  assigning  eight  distinct 
types  to  William  I,  and  five  to  William  II.  This  classification 
enabled  Mr.  Carlyon-Britton  to  offer  some  suggestions  respect- 
ing the  period  of  division  of  the  coinage  of  the  two  reigns,  a 
question  which  hitherto  had  baffled  the  ingenuity  of  numis- 
matists. In  support  of  his  views  he  cited  the  evidence  of  the 
more  important  finds  of  coins  of  that  period.  Series  of  coins 
illustrating  the  papers  were  exhibited  by  Mr.  Carlyon-Britton 
and  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  from  their  Cabinets. 


MAY  16,  1901. 
SIB  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  President,  in  the  Chair. 

Stewart  A.  McDowall,  Esq.  and  Percy  Henry  Webb,  Esq. 
were  elected,  and  Isidore  Kozminsky,  Esq.  was  nominated  a 
Member  of  the  Society. 

The  following  presents  were  announced  and  laid  upon  the 
table :— 


14  PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE 

1.  Revue  Suisse  de  Numismatique.     Tome  x.     lre  livr. 

2.  Bulletin  historique  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  la 
Morinie.     197  livr. 

3.  Proceedings   of   the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  London. 
Vol.  xviii.     No.  I. 

4.  La  Gazette  Numismatique.     No.  7,  1901. 

5.  Monatsblatt   der  Numismatischen  Gesellschaft   in   Wien. 
No.  213. 

6.  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Antiquaires  de  1'Ouest.     4me 
trim.,  1900. 

7.  Coins  of  the  present  Dynasty  of  China.     By  Stephen  W. 
Bushell,  Esq.,  M.D.,  C.B.     From  the  Author. 

8.  Bulletin  de  Numismatique.     Jan. — Mars,  1901. 

9.  Rivista  Italiana  di  Numismatica.     Fasc.  1,  1901. 

10.  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland. 
Vol.  x. 

The  President  read  a  letter  from  the  Home  Secretary,  the 
Right  Hon.  Charles  T.  Ritchie,  conveying  His  Majesty  the 
King's  thanks  for  the  loyal  and  dutiful  Address  of  Sympathy  of 
the  Society. 

Mr.  Wilfred  Cripps,  C.B.,  exhibited  a  unique  and  unpublished 
aureus  of  Carausius,  having  on  the  obverse  the  laureate  and 
draped  bust  of  the  Emperor  and  the  legend  IMP.  CARAVSIVS 
P.F.  AVG-.,  and  on  the  reverse  Pax  standing,  holding  a  branch 
and  a  sceptre,  and  the  legend  PAX.  AVG.— VOT.  V.  This 
interesting  coin  was  found  a  few  years  ago  in  Cirencester  in 
the  course  of  excavating  foundations  for  some  villas.  The 
chief  interest  of  the  coin,  apart  from  its  rarity,  is  that  it  bears 
the  legend  VOT.  V.  (Votis  quinquennalibus),  a  hitherto  unknown 
inscription  on  the  coins  of  this  reign,  and  that  it  is  similar  to 
another  aureus  of  Carausius  in  the  possession  of  Sir  John 
Evans  which,  however,  reads  MVLT.  X.  (Multis  decennalibus) 
for  VOT.  V.  The  type  of  "  Pax  "  records  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
between  Carausius  and  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  concluded  in 
A.D.  290,  the  probable  date  of  the  issue  of  the  coin. 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  15 

Major  A.  B.  Creeke  exhibited,  with  notes,  two  unpublished 
stycas  in  copper  of  Aelfwald  I  and  Aethelred  I,  kings  of  North- 
umbria.  Hitherto  no  coin  of  the  latter  king  had  been  identified, 
and  the  copper  styca  of  the  former  marks  the  change  from 
silver  to  copper  of  those  pieces. 

Mr.  Lionel  L.  Fletcher  exhibited  a  halfpenny  of  Charles  II 
reading  CRAOLVS  for  CAEOLVS. 

Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  read  a  paper  on  a  proposed  notation  to  show 
the  position  of  the  inscriptions  on  coins  in  relation  to  the  type, 
The  direction  of  the  inscription  would  be  indicated  by  an 
arrow  with  a  single  barb  ;  a  vertical  arrow  for  an  inscription 
on  the  right  or  left  of  the  type,  with  the  barb  on  the  right  or 
left  of  the  shaft  accordingly ;  a  horizontal  arrow  for  an  inscrip- 
tion above  or  below  the  type,  with  the  barb  above  or  below 
accordingly.  All  inscriptions  should  be  assumed  to  read  "  in- 
wardly" unless  otherwise  indicated;  when  they  read  "out- 
wardly "  the  arrow  should  be  marked  by  two  short  projections 
at  the  butt-end  or  the  outer  side  of  the  shaft.  Curved  inscrip- 
tions to  be  represented  by  a  curved,  straight  inscriptions  by  a 
straight  shaft. 

Mr.  Lionel  M.  Hewlett  read  a  paper  on  a  rare  guiennois  of 
Edward  III  struck  at  Bordeaux.  It  differs  from  the  ordinary 
guiennois  in  having  the  figure  of  the  King  on  the  obverse 
partly  turned  to  the  right,  and  in  the  cross  on  the  reverse 
being  similar  to  that  on  the  leopard,  with  the  limbs  formed  of 
one  plain  and  two  beaded  lines  instead  of  three  plain  lines.  The 
lions  or  leopards  in  the  angles  of  the  cross  are  turned  from 
the  centre.  As  the  leopard  was  struck  before  the  Treaty  of 
Bretigny  and  the  guiennois  after  the  Treaty,  Mr.  Hewlett  con- 
sidered that  this  coin  belonged  to  the  first  issue  of  the  latter 
piece  and,  from  its  rarity,  that  it  may  even  be  a  pattern. 


16  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 

JUNE  20,  1901. 
ANNUAL   GENERAL   MEETING. 

SIB  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Sc.D.,  F.R.S., 
V.P.S.A.,  F.G.S.,  President,  in  the  Chair. 

The  Minutes  of  the  last  Annual  General  Meeting  were  read 
and  confirmed. 

The  Report  of  the  Council  was  then  read  to  the  Society  as 
follows  : — 

GENTLEMEN, — The  Council  again  have  the  honour  to  lay 
before  you  their  Annual  Report  as  to  the  state  of  the  Numis- 
matic Society. 

With  much  regret  they  have  to  announce  the  death  of  the 
following  five  Ordinary  Members  : — 

Robert  Carfrae,  Esq.,  F. S.A.Scot. 
Constantine  Alexander  lonides,  Esq. 
James  J.  Mason,  Esq. 
R  Alexander  Neil,  Esq. 
Major  W.  Nutter. 

And  the  resignation  of  the  following  seven  Ordinary  Mem- 
bers : — 

Mrs.  Bagnall-Oakeley. 
William  Clinton  Baker,  Esq. 
Herr  Carl  Theodor  Deichmann. 
Thomas  W.  Minton,  Esq. 
C.  Montague  Neale,  Esq. 
Henry  Symonds,  Esq. 
George  Wakeford,  Esq. 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  17 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Council  have  much  pleasure  in 
recording  the  election  of  the  following  nine  Ordinary 
Members : — 

The  Right  Hon.  John  Lubbock,  Baron  Avebury. 

Alfred  Charles  Cronin,  Esq.,  F.S.A. 

Lionel  Lawford  Fletcher,  Esq. 

The  Rev.  Cooper  Kennett  Henderson,  M.A. 

Isidore  Kozmrnsky,  Esq. 

Stewart  A.  McDowall,  Esq. 

Frank  E.  Macfadyen,  Esq. 

Robert  Nicholas  Roskell,  Esq. 

Percy  Henry  Webb,  Esq. 

According  to  the  Report  of  the  Hon.  Secretaries,  the  numbers 
of  the  Members  are  as  follows  : — 

Ordinary.        Honorary.         Total. 

June,  1900 27S  23  299 

Since  elected  9  —  9 


285  23  308 

Deceased      5  5 

Resigned 7  7 


June,  1901  ........     273  23  296 


The  Council  have  further  to  announce  that  they  have 
awarded  the  Medal  of  the  Society  to  His  Excellency  Baron 
Wladimir  von  Tiesenhausen  of  St.  Petersburg,  in  recog- 
nition of  his  long  and  valuable  services  to  Oriental  Numis- 
matics, especially  in  connexion  with  the  coinages  of  the 
Khalifs. 

The  Hon.  Treasurer's  Report,  which  follows,  was  submitted 
to  the  Meeting  and  adopted. 

0 


Statement  of  Keceipts  and  Disbursements  of  the 
Dr.  THE  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY  OF  LONDON  IN 


£    s.    d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

To 

Messrs.  Virtue  &  Co.,  for  printing  Chronicles  — 

Parti,     1900       .         .         .         .     39     6     6 

Part  II,      „         ._                .        .     58     1     9 

Part  III,    ,,          .         .        .        .     46     3     6 

Parts  I  and  II,  1901     .         ,         .     98  14     6 

04.9 

q 

»> 

The  Autotype  Company,  for  Plates          .         .        .     38     7  11 

20UI 

0 

»                »                    »              ...      5     0  10 

„                ,i                    „                                     23  10    4 

P.fi 

1  0 

1 

>j 

The  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  one  year's  rent  due  June  24,  1901 

vv 

30 

1  J 

0 

i 

0 

» 

Mrs.  Harper,  for  Attendance,  Tea,  Coffee,  &c. 

11 

3 

6 

» 

Messrs.  H.  Bowyer  &  Co.,  for  Bookbinding     .... 

3 

5 

7 

Messrs.  Davy  &  Sons,  for  Printing   .... 

2 

8 

6 

» 

Messrs.  Hachette,  for  "  Dictionnaire  des  Antiquites  " 

0 

7 

6 

» 

Messrs.  Walker  &  Boutall,  for  Drawing  and  Engraving  . 

1 

10 

0 

5> 

Messrs.  Hodges,  Figgis  &  Co.  for  three  numbers  Journal  R.S.A. 

0 

9 

6 

C.S.S.A.  for  Stationery,  &c  

3 

o 

Q 

Mr.  F.  Anderson,  for  Drawing  Coins 

6 

\j 

10 

O 

o 

Mr.  J.  Pinches,  for  Engraving 

o 

4 

o 

J> 

Mr.  B.  Kingsnorth  for  Engrossing  Address  of  Condolence  to 

the  King  of  Italy 

i 

i  .) 

JJ 

Do.  for  Engrossing  Memorial  to  His  Majesty  the  King  . 

j. 
1 

j.  _ 
12 

6 

>» 

Mr.  A.  P.  Ready  for  making  nine  Electrotype  Medallions 

18 

1 

6 

Dr.  P.  Nelson  for  two  Negatives 

0 

10 

« 

Fire  Insurance  

n 

i  i 

\j 

Secretaries,  for  Postages  . 

\j 

K 

i  >j 
o 

A 

n 

Treasurer,  for  Postages,  Receipts,  and  Cheque  Book 

V 

7 

\J 

13 

w 

6 

» 

Collector  (Mr.  C.  G.  Colman),  Commission  and  Postages  . 

7 

0 

5 

By  Balance  in  hand        

172 

11 

9 

£583 

7 

10 

Examined  and  found  correct, 

W.  C.  BOYD 


W.  C.  BOYD  )    .    _ 

17th  June,  1901.  p.  CARLYON-BRITTON  I  Audttors- 


Numismatic  Society  from  June,  1900,  to  June,  1901. 

ACCOUNT  WITH  ALFRED  EVELYN  COPP,  HON.  TREASURER.         Cr. 


By  Balance  from  last  Statement  . 

£ 
.      243 

s. 
18 

d. 
3 

,,   Entrance  Fees       

9 

9 

0 

,,   Compositions          

31 

10 

0 

„    Subscriptions         ...... 

...       228 

18 

0 

,,    Amount  received  for  Chronicles,  viz.  — 

Mr.  B.  Quaritch      .... 

.     £42  11     3 

Dr.  B.  Laufer          .... 
,,   Foreign  Postages  

050 
1° 

16 
2 

3 
0 

0 

August  Dividend  on  £700  London  and  North- 
Western  Railway  4  %  Consolidated  Preference 
Stock  (less  11s.  8d.  tax) 13  8  4 

February        ditto  ditto  (less  14s.  tax)          .       13     6     0 

26  14    4 


£583     7  10 


ALFRED  E.  COPP, 

HONOEAEY  TBEASTTBER, 
20th  June,  1901. 


20  PROCEEDINGS    OF   THE 

After  the  Report  of  the  Council  had  been  read  and  adopted 
the  President  presented  the  Society's  Medal  to  Dr.  Codrington, 
to  forward  to  Baron  von  Tiesenhausen,  who  was  unable  to  attend 
the  meeting,  and  addressed  him  as  follows : — 

Dr.  Codrington,  I  have  much  pleasure  in  handing  to  you 
the  Medal  of  the  Society  for  transmission  to  His  Excellency 
Baron  Wladimir  von  Tiesenhausen,  of  St.  Petersburg.  It  has 
been  awarded  to  him  by  the  Council  in  recognition  of  his 
services  to  Oriental  numismatics,  especially  in  connection  with 
the  coins  of  the  Muhammedan  Khalifs.  No  one,  probably, 
in  this  country  is  better  acquainted  than  you  with  the  extent 
and  value  of  those  services  which  have  placed  him  in  the  first 
rank  of  Oriental  numismatists.  Already,  in  1855,  we  find  him 
publishing  a  memoir  on  the  Coins  of  the  Samanides,  while  his 
Monnaies  des  Khalifes  Orientaux,  which  appeared  in  1873,  and 
his  Recueil  de  Materiaux  relatifs  a  Vhistoire  de  la  Horde  d'Or, 
of  which  the  first  volume  was  issued  in  1884,  are  universally 
recognised  as  standard  works.  Of  his  numerous  other  publica- 
tions in  the  same  department  of  our  studies  it  is  needless  to  say 
more  than  that  in  them  he  has  fully  sustained  the  high  reputa- 
tion of  St.  Petersburg  as  a  school  of  Oriental  numismatics.  In 
transmitting  the  Medal  to  him,  will  you  assure  him  of  our  most 
cordial  wishes  for  his  welfare,  and  for  the  long  continuance  of 
his  labours  in  the  field  that  he  has  so  successfully  cultivated  ? 

Dr.  Codrington  having  accepted  the  Medal,  replied  as 
follows : — 

Mr.  President,  I  accept  the  Medal  on  behalf  of  Baron  von 
Tiesenhausen  with  much  pleasure,  and  with  the  assurance  that 
the  honour  of  receiving  it  will  be  fully  appreciated  by  him,  and 
that  he  gives  his  warm  thanks  to  the  Society  for  its  award  to 
him.  Unfortunately,  through  error  as  to  his  present  address, 
the  letter  expressing  his  sentiments,  which  is  doubtless  on  its 


NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY.  21 

way,  has  not  reached  the  Secretaries,  but  a  telegram  received 
says  that  he  accepts  the  Medal  with  many  thanks. 

I  beg  also  to  thank  the  Council  for  having  again  chosen  an 
Oriental  scholar  for  Medallist  this  year,  one  whose  work  has 
been  so  valuable  and  helpful  to  students  of  Muhammedan 
numismatics  for  many  years  past,  nearly  half  a  century,  and  to 
whom  we  have  looked  up  as  a  master  of  his  subject  since  the 
time  when  most  of  us  were  but  beginning  our  studies  in 
Oriental  numismatics. 

Since  the  Meeting  the  following  letter  has  been  received  by 
Dr.  Codrington  from  Baron  von  Tiesenhausen. 

"  St.  Petersbourg. 

le  2  Juillet,  1901. 

"Cher  Monsieur, — J'ai  eu  le  plaisir  de  recevoir  votre 
obligeante  lettre  et  je  m'empresse  de  vous  remercier  de  tout 
mon  cceur  de  vos  bonnes  dispositions  pour  moi  et  de  la  vive 
part  que  vous  avez  pris  &  la  conference  qui  a  bien  voulu  me 
decerner  la  medaille  de  la  Societe  Numismatique  de  Londres. 
II  va  sans  dire  que  je  suis  bien  heureux  de  voir  ainsi  mes 
travaux  approuves  par  des  juges  si  competents  et  d'etre 
couronne  d'un  prix  si  honorable. 

"Veuillez  agr6er,  Monsieur,  1'expression  de  ma  considera- 
tion la  plus  distinguee. 

"  Votre  tout  deVoue", 

"  W.  DE  TIESENHAUSEN." 


The  President  then  delivered  the  following  Address : — 

Since  our  last  anniversary  meeting  this  Society,  in  common 
with  the  whole  of  the  British  Empire,  has  sustained  an  im- 
mense, unexpected,  and  irreparable  loss  in  the  person  of  Her 
late  Most  Gracious  Majesty  Queen  Victoria.  It  is  not  for 
me  here  to  dilate  upon  her  virtues  and  abilities  in  every 


22  PROCEEDINGS    OF   THE 

capacity  of  life  ;  but  I  may  venture  to  apply  to  her,  in  a 
slightly  modified  form,  the  verses  commemorating  the  deserts 
of  one  of  her  illustrious  predecessors,  Queen  Elizabeth,  which 
accompany  the  Royal  Arms  in  the  old  church  of  Berkham- 
sted  in  Hertfordshire  : — 

"  This  mighty  Queen  is  dead,  and  lives, 

And  leaves  the  world  to  wonder, 
How  she,  a  widowed  Queen  did  rule, 
No  Kings  have  gone  beyond  her." 

If,  indeed,  any  king  be  destined  to  excel  her  or  to  gain  a 
more  deeply-rooted  affection  in  the  hearts  of  his  subjects,  let 
us  hope  and  pray  that  it  may  be  her  illustrious  successor, 
King  Edward  the  Seventh,  whom  may  God  long  preserve ! 

On  his  accession  this  Society  presented  a  loyal  and  dutiful 
address  to  His  Majesty,  to  which  we  have  received  a  gracious 
reply. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  to-day,  June  20th,  is  the  anni- 
versary of  the  accession  of  Queen  Victoria  in  1837,  the  year 
in  which  the  first  meeting  of  this  Society  was  held. 

I  must,  also,  on  this  occasion,  pay  a  passing  tribute  to  the 
memory  of  the  late  King  of  Italy,  Humbert,  whose  days  were 
cut  short  in  July  last  by  the  cruel  hand  of  an  assassin.  The 
Society  passed  a  vote  of  condolence  on  this  sad  event  with  his 
son,  our  distinguished  Honorary  Member,  Victor  Emmanuel, 
the  present  King,  to  which  an  appreciative  answer  was  gra- 
ciously accorded. 

So  far  as  we  are  immediately  concerned,  the  Society  is  in  a 
prosperous  condition,  though  its  numbers  are  slightly  reduced 
from  what  they  were  at  this  time  last  year.  The  reduction  is 
mainly  owing  to  resignations  ;  and  I  cannot  but  think  that  the 
Members  who  thus  resign  do  not  always  take  into  account  the 
fact  that  the  Chronicle  alone  returns  good  value  for  their  sub- 
scriptions, even  if,  as  is  often  unfortunately  the  case,  they  are 
unable  to  attend  our  meetings. 

Our  finances,  as  you  will  have  heard  from  the  Treasurer's 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY.  23 

Report,  are  on  the  whole  in  a  satisfactory  condition,  though  the 
balance  in  hand  is  materially  reduced. 

The  Society's  Medal,  as  has  also  been  already  stated,  has 
this  year  been  awarded  to  Baron  von  Tiesenhausen  of  St. 
Petersburg,  our  distinguished  Honorary  Member,  in  recognition 
of  his  services  to  Oriental  numismatics,  especially  in  connexion 
with  the  coins  of  the  Muhammedan  Khalifs. 

Our  losses  by  death  have,  I  am  happy  to  say,  been  compara- 
tively small,  being  but  five  in  number.  Among  those,  however, 
who  have  passed  away  there  are  at  least  three  about  whom  I 
must  say  a  few  words. 

Mr.  Robert  Carfrae  was  elected  a  Member  of  this  Society  in 
1973,  and  though  he  never  favoured  us  with  any  written  com- 
munications, he  was  well  known  as  an  ardent  collector,  who 
combined  a  great  amount  of  numismatic  knowledge   with   a 
most  refined   artistic   taste.     The  judgment   with   which   his 
collections   were    made  was   well    exhibited    in    the  series  of 
Greek  coins  which   he  dispersed    by  auction    in   May,  1894, 
and  his  reputation  will    be   fully  maintained   by  the  magnifi- 
cent series  of  "  large  brass  "  Roman  coins  now  about    to  be 
brought   under    the    hammer.      In   Edinburgh    he    was    well 
known  as  a  diligent  antiquary,  having  been  an  active  Fellow 
of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland  since  1862,  and  for 
many  years  one  of  the  Curators  of  their  Museum,  to  which 
he  was  a  most  liberal  benefactor.     Born  in  1819,  he  died  in 
a  ripe  old  age  at  his  residence,  Montrave  Villa,  Murrayfield, 
Edinburgh,  on  the  18th  September,  1900.     Personally  he  was 
a  fine   example   of  an   old-fashioned,   genial,   and  intelligent 
Scotsman ;  and  many  Southern  as  well  as   Northern  friends 
deeply  deplore  his  loss. 

Mr.  Constantine  Alexander  lonides  was  another  of  our 
members  who  was  endowed  with  true  artistic  instincts,  and 
who  approached  numismatics  from  the  aesthetic,  rather  than  the 
historical  side.  His  collection  of  pictures  and  other  works  of 
art  was  justly  renowned,  and  will  ever  remain  a  source  of 


24  PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

pleasure  to  many,  as  he  bequeathed  it  to  the  Victoria  and  Albert 
Museum  for  the  benefit  of  the  nation. 

It  was  only  yesterday  morning  (June  19th)  that  there  passeu 
away  from  among  us,  in  the  prime  of  life,  and  after  a  very  short 
illness,  Mr.  Robert  Alexander  Neil,  tutor  of  Pembroke  College, 
Cambridge.  He  was  the  second  son  of  the  late  Rev.  Robert 
Neil  of  Glencairn,  Aberdeenshire,  where  he  was  born  in 
December,  1852,  and  was  therefore  only  in  his  forty-ninth 
year.  After  passing  through  the  Grammar  School  at  Aberdeen, 
he  proceeded  to  Aberdeen  University,  where  he  took  the  Simp- 
son Greek  Prize  in  1870,  and  the  Fullerton  Scholarship  in 
1871.  In  the  following  year  he  obtained  a  scholarship  at 
Peterhouse,  Cambridge,  where  he  won  the  Craven  Scholarship 
in  1875,  and  attained  the  high  distinction  of  being  second 
Classic  in  the  following  year.  Shortly  afterwards  he  was 
elected  to  a  Fellowship  at  Pembroke  College,  where  for  many 
years  he  has  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to  the  welfare  and 
reputation  of  the  College.  His  accurate  scholarship,  the  wide 
extent  of  his  studies,  which  embraced  not  only  the  classic 
languages  of  Greece  and  Rome,  but  Sanskrit,  in  which  he 
became  the  University  Lecturer,  gave  him  an  almost  unique 
position  at  Cambridge,  and  I,  for  one,  can  testify  to  the  kind  and 
liberal  manner  in  which  he  placed  his  stores  of  knowledge  at  the 
disposal  of  others,  and  in  some  degree  to  the  extent  of  those 
stores.  Although  not  a  professed  numismatist,  he  knew  more 
about  coins  than  many  who  are  brought  in  immediate  contact 
with  them,  and  made  good  use  of  them  in  illustration  of  his 
lectures.  In  him  I  have  lost  a  highly  valued  personal  friend,  and 
this  country  one  of  its  most  accomplished  scholars. 

The  papers  brought  before  us  during  the  past  year  have  been 
numerous  and  varied  in  character.  In  Greek  numismatics,  Mr. 
Warwick  Wroth  has  continued  his  long  series  of  notes  on  the 
acquisitions  made  by  the  British  Museum,  in  a  Paper  giving  an 
account  of  the  principal  Greek  coins  added  to  the  collection 
during  the  year  1900.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  a 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY.  25 

tetradrachm  of  Syracuse  by  Evaenetos  in  the  same  style  as 
some  of  his  dekadrachms,  and  having  a  pellet  below  the  chin  of 
Persephone  ;  a  fine  Carthaginian  tetradrachm  of  Sicily,  pre- 
sented by  Miss  Radford  ;  a  tetrobol  of  Capsa  in  Macedonia  ; 
two  scarce  copper  coins  of  Apollonia  Pontica  in  Thrace ;  and 
some  rare  silver  coins  of  the  Oetaei,  Aegina,  Calchedon,  the 
Satrap  Spithridates,  and  Berenice  II  of  Egypt.  A  tetradrachm 
of  Antiochus  VI  of  Syria  bears  a  singularly  beautiful  portrait. 
Altogether  the  nation,  as  well  as  the  Museum,  may  be  well 
congratulated  on  its  acquisitions. 

Mr.  Warwick  Wroth  has  also  been  engaged  in  the  study  of 
Parthian  coinage,  and  has  made  two  communications  to  the 
Society  upon  the  subject.  In  the  former  of  these  he  has  dis- 
cussed the  coins  bearing  the  name  of  Otanes  and  of  Phraates, 
and  shown  reason  why  he  dissents  from  some  of  the  attributions 
of  Professor  Percy  Gardner.  In  the  latter,  he  boldly  brings 
forward  a  scheme  for  the  re-arrangement  of  the  whole  Parthian 
coinage.  Some  twenty-three  years  have  elapsed  since  Professor 
Gardner  took  the  Arsacidan  series  in  hand,  and  during  that 
interval  of  time,  many  new  coins  have  been  discovered  and 
a  certain  number  of  fresh  numismatic  facts  have  been  brought 
to  light.  Looking,  moreover,  at  the  fact  that  about  seventeen 
successive  monarchs  bore  the  name  of  Arsaces  before  any 
definite  system  of  dates  was  adopted,  it  will  be  admitted  that 
any  classification  of  the  coins  must,  to  some  extent,  be  regarded 
as  provisional,  but  that  that  which  rests  on  the  widest  founda- 
tion of  facts  is  likely  to  be  the  most  trustworthy. 

M.  Eostowzew  has  favoured  us  with  an  interesting  paper  on 
the  remarkable  coins  of  Tarsus  which  commemorate  the  gift  to 
the  city  of  cargoes  of  corn,  derived,  at  all  events,  in  one 
instance,  from  the  granaries  of  Egypt.  The  gifts  were  made  by 
Caracalla  and  Severus  Alexander,  and  are  commemorated  as 
Swpea,  cxapea  <reirov,  or  simply  as  treirof,  the  spelling  of  which 
word  is  worthy  of  notice,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  what  we 
regard  as  a  superfluous  epsilon.  The  paper  concludes  with 

d 


26  PROCEEDINGS   OF    THE 

some  illustrations  of  the  tesserae  in  use  on  the  occasion  of  these 
"  Liberalitates "  in  order  to  facilitate  the  distribution  of  the 
corn  or  money.  One  of  these  in  lead  with  the  word  TAPCOC 
on  the  one  face  and  a  galley  on  the  other  is  preserved  in  the 
British  Museum. 

Mr.  Oman  has  supplied  a  list  of  no  less  than  twenty -five  coins 
of  Smyrna,  mostly  in  brass,  which  are  preserved  in  the  Bodleian 
collection  at  Oxford,  but  which  are  wanting  in  the  British 
Museum.  Nine  are  of  Imperial  times,  and  include  examples  of 
the  Smyrna  coinage  of  Crispina  and  Saloninus.  The  history  of 
the  series  is  interesting,  as  they  were  collected  by  Mr.  Daniel 
Patridge,  a  Smyrna  merchant,  and  were  made  over  to  the 
Bodleian  Library  by  Mr.  William  Raye,  Consul  at  Smyrna,  in 
the  year  1704,  nearly  fifty  years  before  the  foundation  of  the 
British  Museum. 

The  bibliographical  notes  on  Greek  numismatics,  communi- 
cated to  the  Chronicle  by  Mr.  Hill,  contain  a  vast  amount  of 
varied  and  valuable  information,  derived  in  many  instances 
from  somewhat  unexpected  sources.  One  is  led  to  regret  that, 
in  past  years,  a  similar  record  of  numismatic  information  had 
not  been  undertaken. 

The  same  author's  paper,  on  a  method  of  notation  to 
designate  at  a  glance  the  position  and  direction  of  the  legend 
and  type  of  a  coin,  will  no  doubt  receive  careful  consideration. 
The  plan  is  ingenious  and  as  simple  as  the  circumstances  admit ; 
but  a  practical  application  of  it  will  be  necessary  before  an 
opinion  can  be  formed  as  to  the  advisability  of  its  universal 
adoption. 

In  the  domain  of  Roman  numismatics  we  have  had  several 
communications.  I  have  myself  called  attention  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  coins  of  Hadrian,  representing  the  burning  of  the 
claria  or  bonds  for  the  public  debt,  are  illustrated  by  a  bas- 
relief  of  marble  now  in  the  Forum  at  Rome.  Another  relief,  in 
the  same  place,  illustrates  the  corns  of  Trajan  with  ALIM. 
ITAL. 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY.  27 

Coming  down  to  somewhat  later  days  M.  Jules  Maurice  has 
favoured  us  with  two  valuable  monographs  on  the  issues  from 
certain  Roman  mints  during  the  Constantino  Period.  The  first 
relates  to  the  mint  of  London,  and  recites  seven  main  coinages 
between  July,  A.D.  806  and  September,  A.D.  326,  when  the 
mint  was  closed.  Several  of  these  coinages  are  divided  by  the 
author  into  two  or  more  series,  and  the  first  series  of  the  first 
coinage  comprises  coins  in  memory  of  Constantius  as  well  as 
some  bearing  the  name  of  Severus  as  Emperor  and  Maximinus 
and  Constantine  as  Caesars.  In  the  second  series  of  this  issue 
we  find  Maximianus  and  Constantine  as  Emperors.  In  the 
following  issues  Maximinus  Daza  and  Licinius  I  appear,  and 
subsequently  Crispus,  Constantine  II,  and  Licinius  II,  and,  last 
of  all,  Fausta  and  Helena.  There  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
any  gold  coins  struck  at  the  London  mint  during  the  Constan- 
tine Period,  and  M.  Maurice's  essay  does  not  embrace  the 
reigns  of  Carausius  and  Allectus. 

M.  Maurice's  second  paper  relates  to  the  issues  from  the 
important  mint  of  Siscia,  also  during  the  Constantine  Period. 
He  begins  in  A.D.  805  with  coins  of  Severus,  Maximinus,  and 
Constantinus  as  Caesars,  and  of  Maximianus,  Diocletianus,  and 
Constantius  I,  as  Augusti.  In  the  second  emission,  from 
A.D.  308  to  311,  coins  of  Licinius  and  Galeria  Valeria  come  in, 
and  a  succession  of  nine  more  coinages  brings  us  down  to  the 
year  337,  and  these  comprise  coins  of  Constantine  the  Great 
and  his  family,  including  Delmatius  and  Hanniballianus.  The 
artistic  skill  of  the  die-engravers  at  Siscia,  especially  in  the 
case  of  the  gold  coins,  compares  favourably  with  that  ex- 
hibited at  any  of  the  other  contemporary  mints  of  the  Roman 
Empire. 

In  connection  with  the  coins  of  the  Ancient  Britons  we  have 
had  a  short,  but  very  interesting  note  by  Mr.  Grueber  on  an 
unpublished  silver  coin  of  Verica.  This  coin  is  in  fine  con- 
dition, but  weighs  less  than  three  and  a  half  grains  troy.  It 
therefore  belongs  to  the  same  category  as  the  minute  silver 


28  PROCEEDINGS   OF  THE 

coins  of  Verica  and  Tincommius,  found  many  years  ago  on 
Lancing  Downs,  Sussex,  and  now  in  my  own  cabinet,  which 
testify  to  a  considerable  degree  of  civilisation  in  the  part  of 
the  country  where  such  a  currency  existed.  The  type  of  the 
reverse,  a  torque  enclosing  C.  F.,  recalls  that  of  many  of  the 
Celtic  Eegm-bogen  schiisseklien  of  Germany  and  Switzerland. 
The  resemblance  of  the  portrait  on  the  obverse  to  that  of 
Tiberius  is  undeniable,  but  can,  I  think,  hardly  be  accepted  as 
absolutely  conclusive  in  dating  the  coin.  The  laureate  head 
of  Augustus,  on  some  of  his  coins,  closely  resembles  that  of 
Tiberius,  and  the  prototype  of  the  extremely  minute  head  on 
this  coin  of  Verica  may  have  been  one  of  Augustus  with  this 
fortuitous  resemblance. 

With  regard  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  coinage  we  have  received 
several  communications. 

Major  Creeke  has  brought  under  our  notice  two  unpublished 
copper  stycas  of  Northumbria,  the  one  of  Aelfwald  I  and  the 
other  of  Aethelred  I,  of  whom  no  coins  were  previously  known. 
Mr.  W.  C.  Boyd  has  given  us  a  note  on  some  fourteen 
unpublished  varieties  in  his  collection,  ranging  from  a  styca  of 
Eanred  to  a  penny  of  Harold  II. 

Mr.  Carlyon-Britton  has  also  read  a  paper  on  some  coins 
struck  in  the  mints  of  Bedwin  and  Marlborough,  in  Wilts, 
during  the  reigns  of  Edward  the  Confessor  and  William  the 
Conqueror.  The  duration  of  the  coinage  at  both  these  towns 
was  limited  to  a  few  years,  and  the  same  moneyer,  Cilda, 
struck  coins  at  both. 

Lord  Grantley's  paper  on  some  unique  Anglo-Saxon  coins, 
which  I  briefly  mentioned  in  my  last  Anniversary  Address, 
has  now  been  printed  in  full  in  the  Chronicle.  Besides  the 
coin  of  Heahberht  he  describes  a  remarkable  penny  which, 
apparently,  combines  the  names  of  Berhtwulf  of  Mercia  and 
Aethelwulf  of  Wessex ;  and  another  of  Ecgbeohrt  of  Wessex, 
with  the  title  of  King  of  the  Mercians,  as  well  as  two  other 
extremely  rare  coins. 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY.  29 

In  English  numismatics  we  have  had  the  first  part  of  what 
may  be  regarded  as  the  most  important  paper  that  has  ap- 
peared upon  any  branch  of  the  subject  for  many  years — the 
numismatic  history  of  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  by  Mr.  W.  J. 
Andrew.  I  explained  last  year  the  reason  why  the  Chronicles 
for  1900  and  1901  should  be  issued  without  any  direct  regard 
for  their  dates,  and  I  also  reserved  any  comments  upon  the 
paper  until  the  whole  of  it  should  have  been  issued.  All  the 
Members  of  the  Society  will  have  received  Parts  I  and  II  of  the 
Chronicle  for  1901,  and  will  thus  have  been  able  to  judge  of  the 
comprehensive  and  exhaustive  manner  in  which  Mr.  Andrew 
has  treated  his  subject,  but  until  the  paper  is  complete,  it  will 
be  well  for  me  still  to  abstain  from  making  any  farther  com- 
ments upon  it. 

Mr.  Carlyon-Britton  has,  I  am  afraid,  somewhat  encroached 
on  Mr.  Andrew's  field  of  research  in  his  paper  "  On  the  Coins 
of  William  I  and  II  and  the  Sequence  of  the  Types,"  but  both 
authors  recognise  the  bearing  of  the  law  of  monetagium  upon 
the  coinage.  This  law,  however,  was  abolished  by  Henry  I, 
and  Mr.  Carlyon-Britton  has  shown  how,  by  invoking  its  aid 
and  taking  into  account  the  "  mule  "  coins  with  the  head  of 
one  issue  and  the  reverse  of  another,  much  light  may  be  thrown 
on  the  sequence  of  the  types  of  the  two  Williams. 

The  early  English  gold  coinage  has  this  year  received  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  attention.  I  have  attempted  to  bring 
together  all  that  as  yet  is  known  with  regard  to  the  gold 
pennies  of  Henry  III  and  the  florin  and  its  parts  of  Edward  III, 
with  what  success  I  must  leave  others  to  judge.  It  is,  at  all 
events,  something  gained  to  have  all  the  known  varieties  of 
both  the  coinages  brought  together  on  one  autotype  plate. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  has  described  from  his  own  collection  a 
second  specimen  of  the  half-noble  of  the  third  coinage  of 
Edward  III,  like  that  which  belonged  to  the  late  Mr.  Mon- 
tagu, and  was  figured  by  him  in  the  Chronicle  for  1888.  It 
is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  The  coins  differ  in  some 


30  PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

minor  particulars,  but  agree  in  the  characteristic  X,  the 
saltires  between  the  words,  and  the  large  ff  in  the  centre  of 
the  reverse,  all  of  which  are  features  of  the  noble  of  Edward's 
third  year.  Mr.  Lawrence's  coin,  though  worn,  still  weighs 
60J  grains. 

Mr.  Lawrence  has  also  communicated  a  paper  on  .a  small 
hoard  of  groats  of  Henry  VI  to  Henry  VII,  which  comprises 
coins  of  Edward  IV,  Edward  V,  and  Richard  III.  He  has 
utilised  it  for  the  purpose  of  still  farther  corroborating  the 
sequence  of  stops  and  mint-marks  of  Edward  IV  and  Henry 
VII,  as  arranged  by  himself  and  the  Rev.  G.  F.  Crowther.  It 
would  be  an  instructive  piece  of  work,  if  some  one  would 
undertake  the  detailed  comparison  between  these  marks  upon 
the  groats  and  those  on  the  gold  angels  and  larger  coins  of 
Henry  VII. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Walters,  in  his  paper  on  the  last  silver  coinage 
of  Edward  IH,  shows  reason  for  believing  that  the  resumption 
of  the  title  of  King  of  France  on  the  coins  did  not  immediately 
follow  the  violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Bretigny. 

I  am  glad  that  the  Anglo-Gallic  series  is  again  receiving 
attention,  as  it  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  more 
purely  English  coinage.  Mr.  Hewlett,  in  his  paper  on  a  rare 
Guiennois  of  Edward  III,  has  shown  the  bearing  which  the 
Treaty  of  Bretigny,  just  mentioned,  had  on  the  types  of  the 
coins  struck  in  France  by  the  English  king,  as  well  as  on  the 
titles  on  his  coins  struck  in  England. 

An  Anglo-Gallic  paper  in  another  sense,  being  the  joint 
production  of  the  English  Mr.  Grueber  and  the  French  M. 
Blanchet,  related  to  the  law  of  treasure-trove,  ancient  and 
modern.  My  opinion  on  the  subject  of  this  law  and  its  ad- 
ministration in  this  country  is,  I  think,  sufficiently  well  known. 
Its  history,  however,  and  the  forms  that  it  has  assumed  in 
different  countries  of  Europe,  are  an  interesting  subject  for 
study. 

As  to  historical  medals,  perhaps  the  two  most  popular  events 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY.  31 

in  this  country  during  the  eighteenth  century  were  Admiral 
Vernon's  capture  of  Porto  Bello,  "  with  six  ship's  only,"  and 
the  victories  over  the  French  and  their  allies  obtained  by 
Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia. 

To  the  numerous  medals  that  are  known  commemorative  of 
these  two  events,  Mr.  W.  Talbot  Ready  has  been  able  to  add  an 
unpublished  variety  in  each  case. 

In  Oriental  numismatics  I  have  little  to  record,  but  Mr. 
Samuel  Smith  has  contributed  to  us  an  account  of  the  Soudanese 
coinage  struck  by  the  Mahdi  and  the  late  Khalifa,  Abdullah. 
The  degeneration  of  the  silver  coinage  was  rapid  and  complete, 
and  in  a  few  years  the  work  of  Henry  VIII  and  his  successor, 
three  centuries  and  a  half  ago,  was  far  outdone,  and  silver  was 
represented  by  mere  pieces  of  copper  slightly  washed  over  with 
some  white  metal. 

The  coinage  of  the  South  African  Republic  formed  the 
subject  of  a  memoir  communicated  to  the  Society  in  1894, 
which  at  that  time  it  was  not  thought  expedient  to  publish.  It 
has  at  last  appeared  in  the  pages  of  our  Chronicle,  and  is  of 
considerable  interest  now  that  the  Republic  has  ceased  to  exist. 
The  coinage  is  not  without  its  ludicrous  side,  the  representation 
by  a  German  die-sinker  of  the  waggon  in  what  the  burghers 
were  pleased  to  call  their  national  arms,  with  a  pair  of  shafts 
instead  of  a  pole,  thus  reducing  its  dignity  to  that  of  "  a  one- 
horse  concern,"  having  jeopardised  the  re-election  of  President 
Kruger.  Had  he  failed  in  his  election,  who  can  tell  what 
would  have  been  the  present  condition  of  affairs  in  South 
Africa  ? 

In  concluding  my  observations  on  our  publications,  I  may 
mention  that  the  Numismatic  Chronicle  for  the  year  1900,  being 
the  last  volume  of  the  third  series  and  the  fortieth  on  which 
my  name  has  appeared  as  that  of  one  of  the  editors,  is  now 
complete,  and  will  shortly  be  in  the  hands  of  members.  It 
contains  a  double  index  to  the  ten  concluding  volumes  of  the 
third  series  of  the  Chronicle,  for  the  compilation  of  which  we 


PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

indeed  to  o 


=r 

r.~^.,"—  -—*«-'•—  ~" 


his  family,^  an  ingenious  essay  by  M.  B.  Mowat  on  the  recon- 
stitation  of  the  collection  of  die,  of  the  1st  and    nd  centur.es, 
in  which  he  suggests  that  the  «  restored  -  corns  of  T,  us,  Dom, 
tian,  Nerva,  Trajan,  &,,  were    struck   from   dies   that  we 
engraved  in  order  to  complete  the  collect.cn  of  dies  that  , 

kept  by  the  State. 

It  is  proposed  to  hold   another   international  Congress 
historical  studies  at  Rome  in  the  course  of  next  spring,  n 
which  Numismatics  will  occupy  one  of  the  foremost  places. 

The  numismatic  publications  of  the  past  year  have  not  b 
numerous,  but  among  them  is  a  new  volume  of  the  Britu 
Museum  Catalogue  of  Greek  coins  from  the  pen  of  our  Foreig 
Secretary,  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill.     It  relates  to  the  coins  of  Lycaonia, 
Isauria  and  Cilicia,  and  is  illustrated  by  a  map  and  forty  Plates, 
and  among  these  is  one  which,  following  the  example  of  the 
Catalogues  of  the  coins  of  Alexandria,  Caria  and  Lycia,  presents 
what  is  to  my  mind  a  very  valuable  feature,  inasmuch  as  it  tends 
to  complete  the  Catalogue  and  to  render  it  more  valuable  as  a 
work  of  reference.    The  Plate  in  question  is  No.  XL,  and  in 
it  are  represented  fourteen  coins  struck  in  the  region  com- 
prised in  the  Catalogue,  but  of  which  at  present  there  are  no 
specimens  in  the  Museum  collection. 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY 

Although  the  coins  of  Cilicia  such  as  those  of  Celenderis  and 
Mallus  date  back  to  the  sixth  and  fifth  century  B.C.,  and  are 
purely  Greek  in  general  character,  yet  the  bulk  of  the  coins 
treated  of  in  this  volume  and  especially  those  of  Lycaonia  and 
Isauria  belong  to  Roman  Imperial  times.  The  coins  of  Derbe, 
Lystra,  and  Iconium  are  of  some  interest  to  the  biblical  student, 
but  the  earliest,  those  of  Iconium,  do  not  go  back  beyond  the 
first  century  B.C.  Those  of  Lystra  commence  under  Augustus, 
and  those  of  Derbe  under  Faustina  the  younger.  They  throw 
no  light  on  what  may  have  been  "  the  speech  of  Lycaonia  " 
nor  on  the  nice  question  of  who  were  the  divinities  of  the 
district  known  as  Jupiter  and  Mercurius. 

Another  publication  that  ought  to  be  mentioned  is  a  magnifi- 
cent folio  volume  issued  by  the  Royal  Museums  at  Berlin,1 
"  The  Medals  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern."  It  is  illustrated 
by  ninety  plates,  some  of  them,  where  enamelled  work  has  to 
be  reproduced,  in  colours.  There  are  also  numerous  blocks 
introduced  in  the  text.  A  publication  such  as  this,  limited  to 
the  memorials  of  a  single  family,  testifies  to  the  wonderful 
vitality  of  the  race  of  Hohenzollerns,  its  wide-spread  ramifica- 
tions and  its  influence  on  the  history  of  Europe,  if  not  on  the 
destinies  of  the  human  race. 

In  conclusion  I  must  again  point  out  that  the  beneficent  results 
arising  from  our  Society  are  not  in  any  way  limited  to  our 
publications.  Our  well-attended  meetings  prove  that  members 
feel  the  advantage  of  being  periodically  brought  together  for 
the  purpose  of  discussing  objects  of  common  interest,  and  the 
rare  coins  and  medals  that  are  exhibited  at  our  meetings  are  a 
source  of  pleasure  to  those  who  have  the  opportunity  of 
examining  them,  as  well  as  to  the  proud  possessors  who  exhibit 
them.  I  have  now  for  many  years  been  intimately  connected 
with  this  Society,  and  I  do  not  remember  it  in  a  more  active 
and  useful  condition  than  it  is  at  present.  I  can  only  hope 

1  Die  Schaumunzen  des  Hauses  Sohenzollern.    Berlin,  1901. 

e 


34  PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE 

that  for  many  years  to  come  it  may  continue  to  advance,  and 
that  however  long  it  may  exist,  its  standing  and  usefulness  may 
never  recede. 

A  vote  of  thanks  to  the  President  for  his  Address  was  moved 
by  Mr.  Barclay  V.  Head,  seconded  by  Mr.  R.  G-.  Hoblyn,  and 
carried  unanimously. 

The  President  then  announced  to  the  meeting  the  result  of 
the  ballot  for  the  Council  and  the  Officers  for  the  ensuing  year, 
which  was  as  follows  : — 

President. 

SIB  JOHN  EVANS,  K.C.B.,  D.C.L.,  LLJX,  Sc.D., 
F.R.S.,  V.P.S.A.,  F.G.S. 

Vice-Presidents . 

BAECLAY  VINCENT  HEAD,  ESQ.,  D.C.L.,  Pn.D. 
SIB  HENBY  H.  HOWOBTH,  K.C.I.E.,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A. 

Hon.  Treasurer. 
ALFBED  E.  COPP,  ESQ. 

Hon.  Secretaries. 

HEBBEBT  A.  GBUEBEB,  ESQ.,  F.S.A. 
EDWABD  J.  RAPSON,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  M.R.A.S. 

Foreign  Secretary. 
GEOBGE  FBANCIS  HILL,  ESQ.,  M.A. 

Hon.  Librarian. 
OLIVEB  CODBINGTON,  ESQ.,  M.D.,  F.S.A. 


NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY.  35 

Members  of  the  Council. 
W.  J.  ANDREW,  ESQ. 
THOMAS  BLISS,  ESQ. 
W.  C.  BOYD,  ESQ. 

P.  W.  P.  CARLYON-BRITTON,  ESQ.,  D.L  ,  J.P.,  F.S.A. 
WILLIAM  J.  HOCKING,  ESQ. 
L.  A.  LAWRENCE,  ESQ. 
A.  H.  LYELL,  ESQ.,  F.S.A. 
SAMUEL  SMITH,  JUN.,  ESQ. 
FREDERICK  A.  WALTERS,  ESQ.,   F.S.A. 
SIR  HERMANN  WEBER,  M.D. 


LIST    OF   MEMBERS 

OF  THE 

NUMISMATIC    SOCIETY 

OF  LONDON. 

DECEMBEK,  1901. 


LIST  OF  MEMBERS 

OF   THE 

NUMISMATIC     SOCIETY 

OF  LONDON, 
DECEMBEE,  1901. 


An  Asterisk  prefixed  to  a  name  indicates  that  the  Member  has  compounded 
for  his  annual  contribution. 


ELECTED 

1873  *ALEX£IE:FF,  M.  GEORGES  D',  Maitre  de  la  Cour  de  S.M. 
1'Empereur  de  Eussie,  40,  Sergnewskaje,  St.  Petersburg. 

1892  AMEDROZ,  HENRYF.,EsQ.,7,  New  Square,  Lincoln's  Inn,  W.C. 

1882  ANDREW,  W.  J.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  Cadster  House,  near  Whaley 
Bridge,  Derbyshire. 

1884  ANDREWS,  E.  THORNTON,  ESQ.,  25,  Castle  Street,  Hertford. 

1888  ARNOLD,  G.  M.,  ESQ.,  D.L.,  F.S.A.,  Milton  Hall,  Gravesend, 

Kent. 
1900  AVEBURY,  Ex.  HON.  LORD,  P.O.,  F.E.S.,  High  Elms,  Down, 

Kent. 

1882  BACKHOUSE,  SIR  JONATHAN  E.,  BART.,  The  Eookery,  Mid- 

dleton  Tyas,  E.S.O.,  Yorks. 

1892  BAKER,  F.  BRAYNE,  ESQ.,  The  College,  Malvern. 

1898  BANES,  ARTHUR  ALEXANDER,  ESQ.,  The  Eed  House,  Upton, 

Essex. 
1887  BASCOM,  G.  J.,  ESQ.,   109,  Lexington  Avenue,  New  York, 

U.S.A. 
1896  BEARMAN,  THOS.,  ESQ.,  Melbourne  House,  8,  Tudor  Eoad, 

Hackney. 
1898  *BENSON,  FRANK  SHERMAN,  ESQ.,  214,  Columbia  Heights, 

Brooklyn,  N.Y.,  U.S.A. 
1880  *BIEBER,  G.  W.  EGMONT,  ESQ.,  4,  Fenchurch  Avenue,  E.G. 

1883  BIGGE,  FRANCIS  E.,  ESQ.,  Hennapyn,  Torquay. 


4  LIST    OF    MEMBERS. 

ELECTED 

1882  BIRD,  W.  S.,  ESQ.,  74,  New  Oxford  Street,  W.C. 

1885  BLACKETT,  JOHN  STEPHENS,  ESQ.,  C.E.,  Inverard,  Aberfoyle, 
N.B. 

1882  BLACKMORE,  H.  P.,  ESQ.,  M.D.,  Blackmore  Museum,  Salis- 
bury. 

1896  BLEASBY,  GEO.  BERNARD,  ESQ.,  The  Prairie,  Lahore,  India. 

1882  *BLiss,  THOMAS,  ESQ.,  Coningsburgh,  Montpelier  Eoad, 
Baling,  W. 

1879  BLUNDELL,  J.  H.,  ESQ.,  157,  Cheapside,  E.G. 

1896  BOULTON,  S.  B.,  ESQ.,  J.P.,   D.L.,  F.E.S.,  Copped  Hall, 

Totteridge,  Herts. 

1897  BOWCHER,  FRANK,  ESQ.,  35,  Fairfax  Eoad,  Bedford  Park,  W. 
1899  BOWLES,  HAROLD  BOLLES,  ESQ.,  Oakside,  35,  Oakfield  Eoad, 

Clifton,  Bristol. 
1892  BOYD,  WILLIAM  C.,  ESQ.,  7,  Friday  Street,  E.G. 

1899  BOYLE,  COLONEL  GERALD,  48,  Queen's  Gate  Terrace,  S.W. 

1877  BROWN,  G.  D.,  ESQ.,  77,  Mexfield  Eoad,  East  Putney,  S.W. 
1885  BROWN,  JOSEPH,  ESQ.,  C.B.,K.C.,  54,  Avenue  Eoad,  Eegeut's 

Park,  N.W. 

1896  BRUUN,  HERR  L.  E.,  101,  Gothersgade,  Copenhagen. 

1878  BUCHAN,  J.  S.,  ESQ.,  17,  Barrack  Street,  Dundee. 

1889  BUCKLEY,  LADY,  Bathafarn  Hall,  Euthin,  Denbighshire. 

1884  BUICK,  DAVID,  ESQ.,  LL.D.,  Sandy  Bay,  Larne  Harbour, 

Ireland. 
1881  BULL,  EEV.  HERBERT  A.,  Wellington  House,  Westgate-on- 

Sea. 

1897  BURN,  EICHARD,  ESQ.,  Allahabad,  India. 

1881  BURSTAL,  EDWARD  K,  ESQ.,  M.Inst.C.E.,  38,  Parliament 
Street,  Westminster. 

1858  BUSH,  COLONEL  J.  TOBIN,  41,  Rue  de  POrangerie,  le  Havre, 
France. 

1900  BUSHELL,  STEPHEN  W.,  ESQ.,  M.D.,  C.M.G.,  Shirley,  Harold 

Eoad,  Upper  Norwood,  S.E. 

1878  *BUTTERY,  W.,  ESQ.  (address  not  known). 

1886  CALDEOOTT,  J.  B.,  ESQ.,  Wallfields,  Hertford. 
1894  CARLYON-BRITTON,  CAPT.  P.  W.  P.,  D.L.,  J.P.,  F.S.A.,  14, 
Oakwood  Court,  Kensington,  W. 


LIST    Of    MEMBERS.  O 

ELECTED 

1898  CARNEGIE,   MAJOR  D.   LINDSAY,    6,  Playfair  Terrace,   St. 

Andrews,  N.B. 

1899  CAVE,  CHARLES  J.  P.,  ESQ.,  Binsted,  Cambridge. 

1886  CHURCHILL,  Wm.  S.,  ESQ.,  102,  Birch  Lane,  Manchester. 

1884  *CLARK,  JOSEPH,  ESQ.,  5,  Grosvenor  Gardens,  Muswell  Hill, 
N.W. 

1890  CLARKE,  CAPT.  J.  E.  PLOMER,  Welton  Place,  near  Daventry, 

Northamptonshire. 

1891  *CLAUSON,  ALBERT  CHARLES,  ESQ.,  12,  Park  Place  Villas, 

Maida  Hill  West,  W. 

1890  CLERK,  MAJOR-GEN.  M.  G.,  Bengal  Army,  c/o  Messrs.  H.  S. 

King  &  Co.,  45,  PaU  Mall,  S.W. 

1886  CODRINGTON,   OLIVER,    ESQ.,  M.D.,  F.S.A.,  M.E.A.S.,  12, 
Victoria  Road,  Clapham  Common,  Librarian. 

1895  COOPER,  JOHN,  ESQ.,  Beckfoot,  Longsight,  Manchester. 

1877  *Copp,  ALFRED  E.,  ESQ.,  Dampiet  Lodge,  103,  "Worple  Eoad, 

West  Wimbledon,  and  36,   Essex  Street,   Strand,  W.C., 
Hon.  Treasurer. 

1874  CREEKE,  MAJOR  ANTHONY  BUCK,  Westwood,  Burnley. 

1886  *CROMPTON-ROBERTS,  CHAS.  M.,  ESQ.,  16,  Belgrave  Square, 

s.w. 

1900  CRONIN,  ALFRED  C.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  25,  Kensington   Palace 

Mansions,  De  Vere  Gardens,  W. 

1882  CROWTHER,  EEV.  G.  F.,  M.A.,  2,  Sidney  Villas,  Lower  Eoad, 
Sutton,  Surrey. 

1899  CULL,   EEUBEN,   ESQ.,   Tarradale,   Glebe  Avenue,   Enfield, 

Middlesex. 

1875  CTJMING,  H.  SYER,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.Scot.,  63,  Kenningtou  Park  Road, 

S.E. 

1884  DAMES,  M.  LONGWORTH,  ESQ.,  M.B.A.S.,  Alegria,  Enfield, 
Middlesex. 

1900  DATTARI,  SIGNOK  GIOVANNI,  Cairo,  Egypt. 

1891  DAUGLISH,  A.  W.,  ESQ.,  33,  Colville  Square,  W. 

1878  DAVIDSON,  J.  L.  STRACHAN,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  Balliol  College, 

Oxford. 

1884  DAVIS,  WALTER,  ESQ.,  23,  Suffolk  Street,  Birmingham. 

1898  DAVIS,  WILLIAM  JOHN,  ESQ.,  The  Lindens,  Trafalgar  Road. 
Moseley,  Birmingham. 


6  LIST    OF    MEMBERS. 

1888  DAWSON,  G.  J.  CROSBIE,  ESQ.,  M.InsiC.E.,  F.G.S.,  F.S.S., 

May  Place,  Newcastle,  Staffordshire. 
1897  DAY,  ROBERT,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  M.E.I.A.,  Myrtle  Hill  House, 

Cork. 
1886  *DEWICK,  REV.  E.  S.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  26,  Oxford  Square,  Hyde 

Park,  W. 

1888  DICKINSON,  REV.  F.  BINLEY,  M.A.,  Manor  House,  Ottery  St. 

Mary. 

1889  DIMSDALE,    JOHN,    ESQ.,    19,    Phillimore    Gardens,    Ken- 

sington, W. 
1868  DOUGLAS,   CAPTAIN    R.  J.  H.,  Junior    United    Service   Club, 

Charles  Street,  St.  James's,  S.W. 
1893  DTJDMAN,  JOHN,  ESQ.,  JUN.,  RosslynHill,  Hampstead,  N.W. 

1893  ELLIOTT,  E.  A.,  ESQ.,  41,  Holland  Park,  W. 

1893  ELLIS,  LIEUT.-COL.  H.  LESLIE,  F.S.A.,  F.R.G.S.,  Maghery- 

more,  Wicklow. 

1895  ELY,  TALFOURD,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  13,  Well  Road,  Hamp- 
stead, N.W. 

1888  ENGEL,  M.  ARTHUR,  66,  Rue  de  1'Assomption,  Paris. 

1879  ERHARDT,  H.,  ESQ.,  9,  Bond  Court,  Walbrook,  E.G. 

1872  EVANS,  ARTHUR  J.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  F.R.S.,  V.P.S.A.,  Ashmolean 

Museum,  Oxford. 
1849  EVANS,  SIR  JOHN,  K.C.B.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A., 

Corr.  de  1'Inst.,  Nash  Mills,  Hemel  Hempstead,  President. 

1892  *EVANS,  LADY,  Nash  Mills,  Hemel  Hempstead. 

1861  EVANS,  SEBASTIAN,  ESQ.,  LL.D.,  15,  Waterloo  Crescent,  Dover. 

1886  FAY,  DUDLEY  B.,  ESQ.,  53,  State  Street,  Boston,  Mass., 
U.S.A. 

1901  FLETCHER,  LIONEL  LAWTORD,  ESQ.,  Norwood  Lodge,  Tup- 
wood,  Caterham. 

1898  FORRER,  L.,  ESQ.,  Edelweiss,  Chislehurst,  Kent. 

1894  *FOSTER,  JOHN  ARMSTRONG,  ESQ.,  F.Z.S.,  Chestwood,  near 

Barnstaple. 
1891  Fox,  H.  B.  EARLE,  ESQ.,  42,  Rue  Jouffroy,  Paris. 

1868  FRENTZEL,  RUDOLPH,  ESQ.,  96,  Upper  Osbaldeston  Road,  Stoke 

Newington,  N. 
1882  *FRESHFIELD,  EDWIN,  ESQ.,    LL.D.,    F.S.A.,    New  Bank 

Buildings,  31,  Old  Jewry,  E.G. 


LIST   OF    MEMBERS.  « 

ELECTED 

1896  *FRY,    CLAUDE    BASIL,    ESQ.,    Howcroft,    Stoke    Bishop, 

Bristol. 

1897  GANS,  LEOPOLD,  ESQ.,  207,  Madison  Street,  Chicago,  U.S.A. 
1871  GARDNER,  PROF.  PERCY,  Litt.D.,  F.S.A.,  12,  Canterbury  Eoad, 

Oxford. 

1889  GARSIDE,  HENRY,  ESQ.,  Burnley  Eoad,  Accrington. 
1894  GOODACRE,  H.,  ESQ.,  78,  Gloucester  Terrace,  Hyde  Park,  W. 

1885  GOSSET,   MAJOR-GEN.  MATTHEW  W.   E.,   C.B.,  Westgate 

House,  Dedham,  Essex. 

1899  GOWLAND,   WILLIAM,    ESQ.,    F.I.C.,    M.C.S.,    F.S.A.,   13, 
Russell  Road,  Kensington,  W. 

1891  *GRANTLEY,  LORD,  F.S.A.,  2,  Buckingham  Palace  Gardens, 

S.W. 
1865  GREENWELL,  REV.  CANON  W.,  M.A.,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A.,  Durham. 

1894  GRISSELL,   HARTWELL  D.,   ESQ.,   M.A.,  F.S.A.,  60,   High 

Street,  Oxford. 
1871  GRTJEBEE,  HERBERT  A.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  Assistant-Keeper  of 

Coins,  British  Museum,  Hon.  Secretary. 

1899  HALL,  HENRY  PLATT,  ESQ.,  Toravon,  Werneth,  Oldham. 

1898  HANDS,  REV.  ALFRED  W.,  21,  Lansdowne  Crescent,  Chelten- 

ham. 

1864  HEAD,  BARCLAY  VINCENT,  ESQ.,  D.C.L.,  Ph.D.,  Keeper  of 
Coins,  British  Museum,  Vice-President. 

1886  *HENDERSON,  JAMES  STEWART,  ESQ.,  F.R.G.S.,  M.R.S.L., 

M.C.P.,  7,  Hampstead  Hill  Gardens,  N.W. 

1901  *  HENDERSON,  REV.  COOPER-  K.,  M.A.,  Members'  Mansions, 
Victoria  Street,  S.W. 

1892  HEWITT,  RICHARD,  ESQ.,  28,  Westbourne  Gardens,  W. 

1900  HEWLETT,  LIONEL  M.,  ESQ.,  Parkside,  Harrow- on-the-Hill, 

Middlesex. 
1880  HEYWOOD,  NATHAN,  ESQ.,  3,  Mount  Street,  Manchester. 

1893  HILBERS,  THE  VEN.  G.  C.,  St.  Thomas's  Rectory,  Haverford- 

west. 
1898  HILL,  CHARLES  WILSON,  ESQ.,  Bendower,  Kenilworth. 

1893  HILL,    GEORGE    FRANCIS,   ESQ.,    M.A.,    British   Museum, 

Foreign  Secretary. 
1873  HOBLYN,  RICHARD  A.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  30,  Abbey  Road,  St. 

John's  Wood,  N.W. 


LIST    OF    MEMBERS. 

,  WILLIAM  JOHN,  ESQ.,  1,  B,oyal  Mint,  E. 
1895  HODGE,  EDWARD  G.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  13,  WeUington  Street, 

Strand,  W.O. 

1895  HODGE,  THOMAS,  ESQ.,  13,  WeUington  Street,  Strand,  W.C. 
1889  HODGES,  GEOEGE,  ESQ.,  Thornbury,  Gloucestershire. 

1877  HODGKIN.T.,  ESQ.,  D.C.L.,  F.S.A.,  Benwelldene,  Newcastle. 

1878  HOWORTH,   SIR   HENRY   H.,    K.C.I.E.,     F.E.S.,    F.S.A., 

30,  Collingham  Place,  Earl's  Court,  S.W.,  Vice- 
President. 

1883  HUBBARD,  WALTER  E.,  ESQ.,  9,  Broomhill  Avenue,  Partick, 
Glasgow. 

1885  HUGEL,  BARON  F.  VON,  4,  Holford  Eoad,  Hampstead,  N.W. 

1897  HUTH,  BEGINALD,  ESQ.,  32,  Phillimore  Gardens,  Ken- 
sington, W. 

1892  INDERWICK,  F.  A.,  ESQ.,  K.C.,  F.S.A.,  8,  Warwick  Square, 
S.W. 

1872  JAMES,  J.  HENRY,  ESQ.,  Kiugawood,  Watford. 

1879  *JEX-BLAKE,  THE  VERY  EEV.  T.  W.,  D.D.,  F.S.A.,  Deanery, 

Wells. 

1880  JOHNSTON,  J.  M.  C.,  ESQ.,  The  Yews,  Grove  Park,  Camber- 

well,  S.E. 

1898  JONAS,  MAURICE,  ESQ.,  9,  "Drapers'  Gardens,  E.G. 

1843  JONES,  JAMES  COVE,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  Loxley,  Wellesbourne,  War- 
wick. 

1873  KAY,  HENRY  CASSELS,  ESQ.,  11,  Durham  Villas,  Kensington,  W. 

1873  KEARY,  CHARLES  FRANCIS,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  Savile  Club, 

Piccadilly,  W. 

1874  *KENYON,  R.  LLOYD,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  Pradoe,  WestFelton,  Salop. 

1884  KING,  L.  WHITE,  ESQ.,  C.S.I.,  F.S.A.,  Deputy  Commissioner, 

c/o  Messrs.  King  &  Co.,  Bombay,  India. 
1891  KIRKALDY,  JAMES,  ESQ.,  68,  East  India  Eoad,  E. 

1876  KITCHENER,  MAJOR  GENERAL  LORD,  OF  KHARTOUM,  G.C.B., 
K.C.M.G.,  c/o  Messrs.  Cox  &  Co.,  Charing  Cross,  S.W. 

1884  *KiTT,  THOS.W.,EsQ.,Snowdon,WoodbridgeEoad,Guildford. 

1901  KOZMINSKY,  ISIDORE,  ESQ.,  Langport  Villa,  43,  Eobe  Street, 
St.  Kilda,  Victoria,  Australia. 

1879  KRUMBHOLZ,  E.  C.,  ESQ.,  Alcester  House, Wallington,  Surrey. 


LIST    OF    MEMBERS.  9 

ELECTED 

1883  *LAGEKBERG,  M.  ADAM  MAGNUS  EMANUEL,  Chamberlain  of 
H.M.  the  King  of  Sweden  and  Norway,  Director  of  the 
Numismatic  Department,  Museum,  Gottenburg,  and 
Hilda,  Sweden. 

1901  LAMBERT,  HORACE,  Esq.,  Norgrave  Buildings,  59A,  Bishops- 
gate  Street  Within,  E.G. 

1864  *LAMBERT,  GEORGE,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  10,  Coventry  Street,  W. 
1888  *LAMBROS,  M.  J.  P.,  Athens,  Greece. 

1871  *LANG,  SIR  ROBERT  HAMILTON,  The  Grove,  Dedham,  Essex. 
1900  LANGTON,  H.  NEVILLE  S.,  ESQ.,  62,  Harley  Street,  W. 

1898  LAYER,  PHILIP  G.,  ESQ.,  M.E.C.S.,  Head  Street,  Colchester. 

1899  LAWES,  SIR  CHARLES  BENNET,  BART.,  The  Studio,  Chelsea 

Gardens,  S.W. 

1877  LAWRENCE,  F.  G.,  ESQ.,  Birchfield,  Mulgrave  Eoad,  Sutton, 
Surrey. 

1897  LAWRENCE,  H.  W.,  ESQ.,  37,  Belsize  Avenue,  N.W. 
1885  *LAWRENCE,  L.  A.,  ESQ.,  51,  Belsize  Park,  N.W. 

1883  *LAWRENCE,  EICHARD  HOE,  ESQ.,  15,  Wall  Street,  New  York. 
1871  *LAVVSON,  ALFRED  J.,  ESQ.,  Smyrna. 

1898  LEVIEN,   J.   MEWBURN,   ESQ.,    56,   York    Street,    Portman 

Square,  W. 

1892  LEWIS,  PROF.  BtiNNELL,M.A.,F.S.A.,  Queen's  College,  Cork. 
1862  LINCOLN,  FREDERICK  W.,  ESQ.,  69,  New  Oxford  Street,  W.C. 

1900  LINCOLN,  FREDERICK  W.,  ESQ.,  JTIN.,  69,  New  Oxford  Street, 

W.C. 

1887  Low,  LYMAN  H.,  ESQ.,  36,  West  129th  Street,  New  York, 
U.S.A. 

1893  LUND,  H.  M.,  ESQ.,  Makotuku,  New  Zealand. 

1885  *LYELL,  A.  H.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  9,  Cranley  Gardens,  S.W. 

1895  MACDONALD,  GEO.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  The  University,  Glasgow. 

1901  MACFADYEN,  FRANK  E.,  ESQ.,  50,  Larkspur  Terrace,  Jes- 

mond,  Newcastle-on-Tyne. 
1887  MACKERELL,  0.  E.,  ESQ.,  Dunningley,  Balham  Hill,  S.W. 

1895  MARSH,  WM.  E.,  ESQ.,  Marston,  Bromley,  Kent. 

1897  MARTIN,  A.  TRICE,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  Eedborough  House, 
Perceval  Eoad,  Clifton,  Bristol. 

1896  MASSEY,  COL.  W.  J.,  96,  Oakley  Street,  Chelsea,  S.W. 


10  LIST   OF   MEMBERS. 

mono 

1880  *MAUDE,  EEV.  S.,  The  Vicarage,  Hockley,  Essex. 

1901  McDowALL,  STEWART  A.,  ESQ.,  166,  Holland  Eoad,  Kensing- 
ton, W. 

]>••;*  MrLACHLAN,  R.  W.,  ESQ.,  55,  St.  Monique  Street,  Montreal, 
Canada. 

1897  MILNE,  J.  GRAFTON,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  Holly  House,  Plaistow,  E. 

1887  MITCHELL,  E.  0.,  ESQ.,  c/o  Messrs.  H.  S.  King  &  Co.,  65, 

Cornhill. 

1898  MONCKTON,  HORACE  W.,  ESQ.,  F.L.S.,  F.G.S.,  3,  Harcourt 

Buildings,  Temple,  E.G. 

1888  MONTAGUE,  L.  A.  D.,  ESQ.,  Penton,  near  Crediton,  Devon. 

1879  MORRIESON,   MAJOR  H.  WALTERS,  E.A.,   E.A.  Barracks, 

Pembroke  Dock,  S.  Wales. 

1885  MURDOCH,  JOHN  GLOAG,  ESQ.,  Huntingtower,  The  Terrace, 
Camden  Square,  N.W. 

1894  MURPHY,  WALTER  ELLIOT,  ESQ.,  93,  St.  George's  Eoad, 
Pimlico,  S.W. 

1900  *MYLNE,  EEV.  EGBERT  SCOTT,  M.A.,  B.C.L.,  F.S.A.,  Great 
Amwell,  Herts. 

1893  NAPIER,  PROF.  A.  S.,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  Hedington  Hill,  Oxford. 

1864  NECK,  J.  F.,  ESQ.,  c/o  Mr.  F.  W.  Lincoln,  69,  New  Oxford 
Street,  W.C. 

1898  NELSON,  PHILIP,  ESQ.,  M.B.,  Ch.B.,  73,  Eodney  Street, 
Liverpool. 

1880  NELSON,  BALPH,  ESQ.,  55,  North  Bondgate,  Bishop  Auck- 

land. 

1891  NERVEGNA,  M.  G.,  Brindisi.  Italy. 

1898  OGDEN,  W.  SHARP,  ESQ.,  HiU  View,  Danes  Eoad,  Eus- 
holrne,  Manchester. 

1897  *O'HAGAN,  HENRY  OSBORNE,  ESQ.,  A14,  The  Albany, 
Piccadilly,  W. 

1882  OMAN,  C.  W.  C.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  All  Souls  College, 
Oxford. 

1890  PAGE,  SAMUEL,  ESQ.,  Hanway  House,  Nottingham. 
1890  PATOW,  W.  E.,  ESQ.,  Calymna,  Turkey  in  Asia. 


LIST   OF   MEMBERS.  11 

ELECTED 

1882  *PECKOVER,  ALEXANDER,  ESQ.,  LL.D.,  F.S.A.,  F.L.S., 
F.E.G.S.,  Lord  Lieut.  Cambridgeshire,  Bank  House, 
Wisbech. 

1898  PEDLER,  G.  H.,  ESQ.,  L.E.C.P.,  6,  Trevor    Terrace,  Eutland 

Gate,  S.W. 

1896  PEERS,  C.  E.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,107,  Grosvenor  Eoad,  S.W. 

1894  PERRY,  HENRY,  ESQ.,  Middleton,   Plaistow  Lane,  Bromley, 

Kent. 

1862  *PERRY,  MARTEN,  ESQ.,  M.D.,  Spalding,  Lincolnshire. 

1888  PINCHES,  JOHN  HARVEY,  ESQ.,  27,  Oxenden  Street,  Hay- 

market. 

1889  POWELL-COTTON,   PERCY  H.   GORDON,   ESQ.,   Quex  Park, 

Birchington,  Thanet. 

1887  PREVOST,,  AUGUSTUS,  ESQ.,  B.A.,  F.S.A.,  79,  Westbourne 
Terrace,  W. 

1897  PRICE,  F.  G.  HILTON,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  F.G.S.,  17,  Collingham 

Gardens,  S.W. 

1878  PRIDEAUX,  COL.  W.  F.,  C.S.I.,  F.E.G.S.,  M.E.A.S., 
1,  West  Cliff  Terrace,  Eamsgate. 

1899  PRITCHARD,  JOHN  E.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  Guys  Cliff,  Sydenham 

Eoad,  Bristol. 

1887  EANSOM,  W.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  F.L.S.,  Fairfield,  Hitchiii,  Herts. 
1893  EAPHAEL,  OSCAR  C.,  ESQ.,  37,  Portland  Place,  W. 

1890  EAPSON,  E.  J.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  British  Museum,  W.C.,  Hon. 

Secretary. 

1848  EASHLEIGH,  JONATHAN,  ESQ.,  Menabilly,  Par  Station, 
Cornwall. 

1887  EEADY,  W.  TALBOT,  ESQ.,  55,  Eathbone  Place,  W. 

1882  EICHARDSON,  A.  B.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.Scot.,  4,  Malvern  Place, 
Cheltenham. 

1895  EIDGEWAY,  PROFESSOR  W.,  M.A.,  Fen  Ditton,  Cambridge. 

1876  *EOBERTSON,  J.  D.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  21,  Park  Eoad,  Eichmond 
Hill,  Surrey. 

1889  EOME,  WILLIAM,  ESQ.,  C.C.,  F.S.A.,  F.L.S.,  Creeksea  Place, 
Burnham-on-Crouch. 

1900  EOSKELL,   EGBERT  N.,   ESQ.,    2,   Warwick   Gardens,   Ken- 

sington, W. 


12  LIST   OF    MEMBERS. 

ELECTED 


1862  ROSTRON,  SIMPSON,  Esq.,  1,  Hare  Court,  Temple,  E.G. 
1896  *ROTH,    BERNARD,    ESQ.,    J.P.,    Wayside,   Preston    Park, 
Brighton. 


1872  *SALAS,  MIGUEL  T.,  ESQ.,  247,  "Florida  Street,  Buenos 

1877  *SANDEMAN,  LIEUT.-COL.  JOHN  GLAS,  F.S.A.,  24,  Cambridge- 
Square,  Hyde  Park,  W. 

1875  SCHINDLER,  GENERAL  A.  H.,  c/o  Messrs.  W.   Dawson  and 
Son,  Bream's  Buildings,  Chancery  Lane,  W.C. 

1895  SELBY,  HENRY  JOHN,  ESQ.,  The  Vale,  Shortlands,  Kent. 
1890  SELTMAN.E.  J.,Esq.,  Kinghoe,  Great  Berkhamsted,  Herts. 
1900  SHACKLES,  GEORGE  L.,  ESQ.,  Southfield,  Hessle,  near  Hull. 

1889  SIDEBOTHAM,  E.  J.,  ESQ.,  M.B.,Erlesdene,  Bowdon,  Cheshire. 

1896  SIMPSON,  C.  E.,  ESQ.,  Huntriss  Eow,  Scarborough. 

1893  *SiMS,  E.  F.  M.,  ESQ.,  12,  Hertford  Street,  Mayfair,  W. 

1896  SINHA,  KUMVAR  KusHAL  PAL  —  EAIS  OF  KOTLA,  Kotla,  Agra, 

India. 
1887  SMITH,  H.  P.,  ESQ.,  256,  West  52nd  Street,  New  York. 

1883  SMITH,  R.  HOBAET,  ESQ.,  542,  West  150th  Street,   New 
York. 

1866  SMITH,  SAMUEL,  ESQ.,  JuN.,25,  Croxteth  Road,  Prince's  Park, 

Liverpool. 

1890  SMITH,  W.   BERESFORD,  ESQ.,  Kenmore,    Vanbrugh   Park 

Eoad  West,  Blackheath. 

1892  SMITH,  VINCENT  A.,  ESQ.,  Gwynfa,  Cheltenham. 

1881  SMITHE,  J.DOYLE,  ESQ.,  F.G.S.,  Ecclesdin,  Upper  Norwood. 
1890  *SPENCE,  C.  J.,  ESQ.,  South  Preston  Lodge,  North  Shields. 

1867  SPICER,  FKEDERICK,  ESQ.,  Woodbank,  Prestwich  Park,  near 

Manchester. 
1887  SPINK,  C.  F.,  ESQ.,  17,  Piccadilly,  W, 

1894  SPINK,  SAMUEL  M.,  ESQ.,  17,  Piccadilly,  W. 

1890  STANFORD,    CHARLES    G.    THOMAS-,    ESQ.,  3,    Ennismore 
Gardens,  S.W. 

1893  STOBART,  J.M.,  ESQ.,  Glenelg,  18,  Eouth  Eoad,  Wandsworth 

Common,  S.W. 

1889  STORY,  MAJOR-GEN.  VALENTINE  FREDERICK,  The  Forest, 
Nottingham. 


LIST    OF    MEMBERS.  13 

ELECTED 

1869  *STREATFEILD,  UEV.  GEORGE    SIDNEY,  Christchurch  Vicarage, 

Hampstead,  N.W. 
1896  STRIDE,  ARTHUR,  LEWIS,  ESQ.,  J.P.,  Bush  Hall,  Hatfield. 

1894  STROEHLIN,  M.,  P.  C.,  86,  Route  de  Chene,  Geneva,  Switzer- 

land. 

1864  *STUBBS,  MAJOR-GEN.  F.  W.,  R.A.,  M.R.A.S.,  2,  Clarence 
Ten-ace,  St.  Luke's,  Cork,  Ireland. 

1875  STUDD,  E.  FAIRFAX,  ESQ.,  Oxton,  Exeter. 

1893  STURT,  LIEUT.-COL.  R.  N.  (address  not  known). 

1870  SUGDEN,  JOHN,  ESQ.,  Dockroyd,  near  Keighley. 

1896  *TAFFS,  H.  W.,  ESQ.,  35,  Greenholm  Road,  Eltham,  S.E. 

1879  TALBOT,.  LIEUT.-COL.   THE  HON.  MILO  GEORGE,   E.E.,  2, 

Paper  Buildings,  Temple,  E.C. 

1897  TALBOT,  W.   S.,   ESQ.,   C.   S.    Settlement    Officer,   Jhelum, 

Panjab,  India. 
1888  TATTON,  THOS.  E.,  ESQ.,  Wythenshawe,  Northen  den,  Cheshire. 

1892  *TAYLOR,  E.   WRIGHT,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  8,  Stone  Buildings, 

Lincoln's  Inn,  W.C. 

1887  TAYLOR,    W.   H.,    ESQ.,    The    Croft,    Wheelwright    Road, 
Erdington,  near  Birmingham. 

1887  THAIRLWALL,  T.  J.,  ESQ.,  12,  Upper  Park  Eoad,  Haverstock 

Hill,  N.W. 

1880  *THEOBALD,  W.,  ESQ.,  North   Brow,  9,  Croftsea  Park,  Ilfra- 

combe. 

1896  THOMPSON,  HERBERT,  ESQ.,  35,  Wimpole  Street,  W. 

1896  THORBURN,  HENRY  W.,  ESQ.,  Cradock  Villa,  Bishop  Auck- 
land. 

1888  THURSTON,  E.,  ESQ.,  Central  Government  Museum,  Madras. 

1895  TILLSTONE,    F.   J.,    ESQ.,    The  Librarian,  Brighton   Public 

Library,  Church  Street,  Brighton. 

1894  TRIGGS,  A.  B.,  ESQ.,  Bank  of  New  South  Wales,  Yass,  New 

South  Wales. 

1880  TRIST,  J.  W.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  F.S.I.,  3,  Great  St.  Helens,  E.C. 
1887  TROTTER,  LIEUT.-COL.  HENRY,  C.B.,  United  Service  Club. 

1874  VERITY,  JAMES,  ESQ.,  The  Headlands,  Earls  Heaton,  Dewsbury 

1893  VIRTUE,  HERBERT,  ESQ.,  294,  City  Road,  E.C. 


14  LIST   OF   MEMBERS. 

1874*VizE,  GEORGE  HENRY,  ESQ.,  15,  Spencer  Koad,  Putaey, 
S.W. 

1899  VLASTO,  MICHEL  P.,  ESQ.,  12,  Allier  des  Cappucines,  Mar- 
seilles, France. 

1892  VOST,  DR.  W.,  Jaunpur,  North- West  Provinces,  India. 

1883  WALKER,  E.  K.,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  Trin.  Coll.  Dub.,  Watergate, 

Meath  Road,  Bray,  Ireland. 
1897  WALTERS,  FRED.  A.,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  37,  Old  Queen  Street, 

Westminster,  S.W. 
1894  WARD,    JOHN,    ESQ.,    J.P.,    F.S.A.,    Lenoxvale,    Belfast, 

Ireland. 

1889  WARREN,  COL.  FALKLAND,  C.M.G.,  911,  Nicola  Street,  Van- 
couver, British  Columbia. 

1901  *  WAITERS,  CHARLES  A.,  ESQ.,  Highfield,  Woolton  Eoad, 
Wavertree,  Liverpool. 

1901  WEBB,  PERCY  H.,  ESQ.,  Walton-on-Thames. 

1887  *WEBER,  EDWARD  F.,  ESQ.,  58,  Alster,  Hamburg,  Germany. 

1885  *WEBER,  FREDERIC  P.,  ESQ.,  M.D.,  F.S.A.,  19,  Harley 
Street,  W. 

1883  *WEBER,  SIR  HERMANN,  M.D.,  10,  Grosvenor  Street,  Gros- 

venor  Square,  W. 

1884  WEBSTER,  W.  J.,  ESQ.,  109,  Streatham  Hill,  S.W. 

1899  WELCH,  FRANCIS  BERTRAM,  ESQ.,  B.A.,  8,  Brandram  Eoad, 
Lee,  Blackheath,  S.E. 

1883  WHELAN,  F.  E.,  ESQ.,  6,  Bloomsbury  Street,  W.C. 
1869  *WIGRAM,  MRS.  LEWIS  (address  not  known). 

1881  WILLIAMSON,  GEO.  C.,  ESQ.,  F.E.S.L.,  The  Mount,  Guild- 
ford,  Surrey. 

1869  WINSER,  THOMAS  B.,  ESQ.,  81,  Shooter's  Hill  Eoad,  Blackheath, 
S.E. 

1868  WOOD,  HUMPHREY,  ESQ.,  F.S.A.,  Chatham. 

1860  WORMS,  BARON  G.  DE,  F.E.G.S.,  F.S.A.,  V.P.E.S.L.,  E.G.S., 
D.L.,  J.P.,  17,  Park  Crescent,  Portland  Place,  W. 

1880  WROTH,  W.  W.,  ESQ.,  British  Museum. 


LIST    OP    MEMBERS.  15 

ELECTED 

1885  WYON,  ALLAN,    ESQ.,   F.S.A.,    F. S.A.Scot.,    2,   Langham 
Chambers,  Portland  Place,  W. 


1889  YEATES,   F.   WILLSON,   ESQ.,    7,  Leiuster    Gardens,   Hyde 
Park,  W. 

1880  YOUNG,  ARTHUR  W.,  ESQ.,  12,  Hyde  Park  Terrace,  W. 

1898  YOUNG,   JAMES,    ESQ.,    11,    Porchester    Terrace,    Lancaster 
Gate,  W. 


1900  ZIMMERMAN,    REV.    JEREMIAH,    M.A.,    D.D.,    109,   South 
Avenue,  Syracuse,  New  York,  U.S.A. 


HONORARY  MEMBERS. 

ELECTED 

1898  His  MAJESTY  THE   KING  OF    ITALY,    Palazzo   Quirinale, 
Rome. 

1891  BABELON,  M.  ERNEST,  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris. 
1862  BARTHELEMY,  M.  A.  DE,  9,  Rue  d'Anjou,  Paris. 

1898  BLANCHET,  M.  J.  A.,  164,  Boulevard  Pereira,  Paris. 
1881  DANNENBERG,  HERR  H.,  N.W.,  Lessingstrasse,  Berlin. 

1899  DROUIN,  M.  EDMOND,  11,  Rue  de  Verneuil,  Paris. 

1898  DRESSEL,  DR.  H.,  Miinz  Kabinet,  K.  Museen,  Berlin. 

1899  GABRICI,  PROF.  DR.,  Ettore,  Salita  Stella,  21,  Naples. 

1893  GNECCHI,  SIGR.  FRANCESCO,  10,  Via  Filodrammatici,  Milan. 

1886  HERBST,  HERR  C.  F.,  Director  of  the  Museum  of  Northern 
Antiquities  and  Inspector  of  the  Coin  Cabinet,  Copenhagen. 

1886  HILDEBRAND,  DR.  HANS,  Riksantiquarien,  Stockholm. 

1873  IMHOOF-BLUMER,  DR.  F.,  Winterthur,  Switzerland. 

1893  JONGHE,  M.  le  Vicomte  B.  de,  Rue  du  Trone,  60,  Brussels. 

1878  KENNER,  DR.  F.,  K.  K.  Museen,  Vienna. 

1893  LOEBBECKE,  HERR  A.,  Cellerstrasse,  1,  Brunswick. 

1898  MADDEN,    F.    W.,   ESQ.,   Holt  Lodge,  86,   London  Road, 
Brighton. 


1(1  LIST  OF    MEMBERS 

KLECTED 


1898  MILANI,  PROF.,  Luigi  Adriano,  Florence. 

1878  MOMMSEN,  PROFESSOR  DR.  THEODOR,  Charlottenburg,  Berlin. 

1899  PICK,  DR.  BEHRENDT,  Herzogliche  Bibliothek,  Gotha. 
1895  REINACH,  M.  THEODORE,  26,  Rue  Murillo,  Paris. 

1891  SVORONOS,  M.  J.  N.,  Conservateur  du  Cabinet  des  Medailles, 

Athens. 

1881  TIESENHAUSEN,  S.  E.  BARON  WLADIMIR  VON,  Commission 
Archdologique  au  Palais  d'Hiver,  St.  Petersburg. 

1886  WEIL,  DR.  RUDOLF,  Konigliche  Museen,  Berlin. 


MEDALLISTS 

OF   THE   NUMISMATIC   SOCIETY   OF    LONDON. 

1883  CHARLES  ROACH  SMITH,  ESQ.,  F.S.A. 

1884  AQUILLA  SMITH,  ESQ.,  M.D.,  M.R.I.A. 

1885  EDWARD  THOMAS,  ESQ.,  F.R.S. 

1886  MAJOR-GENERAL  ALEXANDER  CUNNINGHAM,  C.S.I.,  C.I.E. 

1887  JOHN  EVANS,  ESQ.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.,  P.S.A. 

1888  DR.  F.  IMHOOF-BLUMER,  of  Winterthur. 

1889  PROFESSOR  PERCY  GARDNER,  Litt.D.,  F.S.A. 

1890  MONSIEUR  J.  P.  Six,  of  Amsterdam. 

1891  DR.  C.  LUDWIG  MULLER,  of  Copenhagen. 

1892  PROFESSOR  R.  STUART  POOLE,  LL.D. 

1893  MONSIEUR  W.  H.  WADDINGTON,  Senateur,  Membre  de  1'In- 

stitut,  Paris. 

1894  CHARLES  FRANCIS  KEARY,  ESQ.,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

1895  PROFESSOR  DR.  THEODOR  MOMMSEN,  of  Berlin. 

1896  FREDERIC  W.  MADDEN,  ESQ.,  M.R.A.S. 

1897  DR.  ALFRED  VON  SALLET,  of  Berlin. 

1898  THE  REV.  CANON  W.  GREENWELL,  M.A.,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A. 

1899  MONSIEUR  ERNEST  BABELON,  Membre  de  1'Institut,   Con- 

servateur des  Medailles,  Paris. 

1900  PROFESSOR  STANLEY  LANE-POOLE,  M.A.,  LittD. 

1901  S.  E.  BARON  WLADIMIR  VON  TIESENHAUSEN. 


A 

NUMISMATIC    HISTORY 

OF  THE  REIGN  OF 

HENRY    I. 

(1100—1135) 


FIRST   PART. 


BY 

W.   J.   ANDBEW, 

OF    CADSTER,  WHALEY   BRIDGE. 


NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 


A  NUMISMATIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  REIGN  OF  HENRY  I. 
1100—1135. 


"  All  the  influential  men,  both  bishops  as  well  as  earls  and  barons,  coined 
their  own  money." — HOVEDEN. 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE  primary  object  of  this  work  is  in  advance  of  that 
suggested  by  its  title.  It  is  to  demonstrate  that,  under  the 
Anglo-Saxon  and  Norman  dynasties — and  probably  at 
that  time  upon  the  Continent  of  Europe  also — the  general 
monetary  system  was  carried  on  under  a  feudal  constitution 
differing  considerably  from  what  has  hitherto  been  sup- 
posed. Of  this  system  the  following  are  the  main  principles. 

1.  The  King's  money  was  only  issued  by  his  direct 
authority  at  a  comparatively  small  proportion  of 
the  mints, — namely  at  those  royal  cities  and  towns 
which,  for  the  time  being,  remained  under  his 
immediate  control,  i.e.,  in  the  words  of  Domesday, 
in  manu  regis.  The  moneyers  of  these  mints  only 
were  therefore  officers  of  the  Crown,  men,  often, 
of  considerable  wealth  and  importance,  and  in 
virtue  of  their  office  tenants  in  capite  of  the  King. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  B 


NUMISMATIC   CHROXICLE. 

The   Mints   were  however  often    farmed   to   the 
Burgesses  in  the  rent  of  their  city  or  town. 

2.  The  greater  part  of  the  country  was  at  that  time 
granted  by  Charter  to  the  Archbishops,  Bishops, 
Earls,  and  principal  Barons,  in  return  for  spiritual 
or  military  service.     The  grant   of  a  city  or  town 
included  the  mint,  where  one  already  existed,  and  in 
some  cases  mints  were  expressly  established  by  the 
Charter  granting  a  city  or  town  which  previously 
had  no  mint.     Thus  most  of  the  mints  were  under 
the  immediate  jurisdiction  of  the  territorial  lords 
and  were  included  in  their  chartered  privileges. 

3.  As  the  then  doctrine  of  law  was,  that  no  one  could 
hold   more  that  a  life  interest   in   any  property, 
the  King  could  not  grant  the  city  or  town  (with 
its  privileges)  for  a  longer  period  than  during  his 
lifetime,  after  which  it  nominally  reverted  to  his 
successor.     So  also  the  grantee  could  only  receive 
it  for  his  own  life,  and  upon  his  death  it  nomin- 
ally reverted    to  the  Crown.     Hence    arose  the 
system  of  confirmation  Charters,  granted  by  each 
new  King,  or  received  by  each   new  lord.     The 
effect  of  this  was  that  between  the  expiration  of 
the  old  Charter,  from  either  of  these  two  causes, 
and  the  receipt  of  the  confirmation  Charter,  all  the 
privileges  of  the  lordship,  including  that  of  coinage 
at  the  mints  affected,  were  necessarily  dormant. 

4.  "  Out  of  feudalism  arose  the  maxim  that  all  lands 
in  the  kingdom  were    originally  granted  by  our 
Kings,  and  held  mediately  or  immediately  of  the 
King,   as    lord    paramount   in    consideration    of 
certain    services   to  be  rendered   by  the  holder  " 
(Wharton's  Law  Lexicon).    Hence  the  privilege  of 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.         d 

coining  and  issuing  the  King's  money,  being  con- 
fined to  the  precincts  of  the  mint  and  attached  to 
the  soil  by  the  Charter  of  grant,  could  not  be  dele- 
gated, assigned,  or  farmed  by  the  grantee  without  a 
further  Royal  Charter  of  assent  and  confirmation. 
The  effect  of  this  was,  that  the  privilege  remained 
a  purely  inalienable  and  official  prerogative,  only 
exercisable  by  the  territorial  lord  himself  when 
within  his  lordship,  and  was  dormant  during  his 
absence  abroad.  The  moneyers  therefore  of  these 
mints  were  not  officers  of  the  Crown,  but  merely 
servants  of  their  lord.  The  lord  paid  certain  fees 
to  the  King's  cuneator  for  the  dies,  and  in  return 
received  the  profits  of  the  coinage,  or  whatever 
share  of  them  was  limited  to  him  by  his  Charter. 

The  reign  of  Henry  I  has  been  selected  as  the  initiatory 
proof  of  this  new  phase  in  the  history  of  our  early  con- 
stitutional coinage  for  a  variety  of  reasons.  It  con- 
veniently commences  within  some  fourteen  years  of  the 
great  topographical  survey  Domesday,  and  it  includes 
the  only  existing  Norman  Exchequer  Return  we  have, 
namely,  an  odd  volume  for  the  year  1129 — 1130  of,  what 
was  practically  the  annual  sequel  to  Domesday,  the  Pipe 
Roll.  It  embraces  a  period  when  the  King  and  his 
Barons  spent  as  much  of  their  time  in  Normandy  as  in 
England,  which  fact  clearly  explains  the  intermittent 
character  of  the  output  of  the  chartered  mints.  It  is  the 
reign  of  which  less  has  been  written  for  the  numismatist 
than  of  any  other,  and  so  little  is  known  of  its  coins, 
that  no  attempt  has  hitherto  been  made  even  to  arrange 
the  order  of  their  types,  and  the  types  actually  assigned  to 
it  include  several  which  must  be  assigned  to  the  time  of 


4  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Stephen.     Therefore  it  is  thought  that  by  choosing  almost 
untrodden  ground,  the  materials,  of  which  the  structure  of 
proof  is  composed,  may  themselves  be  of  interest  and  value. 
Coins  are  the  illustrations  of  '  Time's  history,'  and  to  col- 
lect them  with  any  other  purpose  in  view,  is  almost  as  use- 
less as  the  hoarding  of  a  miser's  gold.  If  all  other  records 
of  a  nation  were  lost,  much  could  be  gathered  from  a  study 
of  its  coinage  ;  and  now  that  a  new  light  is  thrown  upon 
our  feudal  monetary  conditions,   it    is  hoped   that   the 
interest  in  our  coins  will  be  increased.     By  it,  the  historian 
should  be  able  to  check  many  uncertain  dates  in  our  early 
records,  for  by  its  help  he  can  establish  the  dates  of  the 
presence  of  the  King  and  his  Barons  in  England  or  their 
absence  abroad  at  any  specified  time.     It  also  enables  him 
to  test  the  validity  of  our  Charters,  to  prove  the  accuracy 
of  Domesday,  and,  in  other  reigns,  to  follow  the  effect  of 
sieges  and  counter-sieges  during  our  civil  wars  and  insur- 
rections.    To  the  topographer  and  genealogist  it  almost 
writes    the    history   of    scores   of    the    principal   towns 
and  families  in  England.     To  the  numismatist  it  dates 
every  type;    it    explains   why    so    many    are    missing 
from  most  of  the  mints  ;  it  simplifies   the  appropriation 
of  coins,  hitherto  doubtful,  to  their  proper  mints ;   it  ex- 
plains those  curious  mint-marks  or  ornaments  upon  many 
of  them,  and  finally  it  proves  how  complete  is  our  series 
of   existing    specimens,    as    representatives  of   the  total 
coinage  issued,  and  it  even  tells  us  what  missing  varieties 
we  may  yet  hope  to  discover. 

The  writer  will  be  grateful  if  those  who  possess  coins  of 
Henry  I  not  included  in  the  following  pages,  or  any  of 
William  I,  William  II,  or  Stephen,  will  communicate  par- 
ticulars of  them  to  him  and  thus  assist  the  study  of 
Norman  numismatics. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.          & 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    NORMAN    COINAGE. 

AT  the  era  of  the  Conquest  of  England  the  coinage  of  the 
Anglo-Saxons  was  second  in  importance  to  none  in  Europe, 
and  the  silver  penny  of  that  day  as  a  pure  and  standard 
medium  of  commerce,  and  as  the  prototype  of  much  of  the 
money  of  neighbouring  countries  on  the  Continent,  can 
only  be  compared  with  our  golden  sovereign  of  to-day. 
In  like  manner  the  penny  was  the  maximum  unit  of 
currency,  and  if  we  eliminate  our  modern  small  change 
from  the  comparison,  as  being  then  represented  by  a 
system  of  barter,  the  parallel  between  our  sovereign  and 
the  ancient  silver  penny  is  remarkable,  and  the  modern 
gold  coinage  of  sovereigns  and  half-sovereigns  conveys  a 
very  fair  idea  of  the  actual  currency  of  the  penny  and  its 
mechanically  divided  fractions  of  the  half-penny  and 
farthing  of  long  ago.  The  analogy  might  be  continued  in 
many  directions,  and  even  in  that  of  quantity,  for  our 
Saxon  forefathers  probably  circulated  in  their  every  day 
life  as  many  or  as  few  silver  pennies  as  we,  outside  the 
commercial  centres  of  trade  and  exchange,  do  pounds  in 
actual  specie.  A  comparison  of  their  respective  purchasing 
power,  however,  no  longer  bears  out  this  relationship,  for 
in  later  times  universal  facilities  of  import  and  export 
have  tended  to  cheapen  all  those  necessaries  of  life  by 
which  alone  we  can  gauge  the  former  value  of  money. 
The  country  then  had  to  support  its  own  population,  but 
now  its  total  food  products  would  only  sustain  it  for  some 
two  hundred  days  of  the  year,  and  thus,  if  we  had  to  return 
to  the  former  condition  of  affairs,  all  necessaries  would  be 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


at  famine  prices,  and  the  purchasing  power  of  the  sovereign 
would  be  no  greater  than  that  of  the  old  penny. 

The  proportionate  value  of  the  necessaries  of  life  has  re- 
mained much  the  same.  In  the  eleventh  century  the 
value  of  a  fowl  or  duck  was,  as  it  is  now,  about  the  same 
as  the  daily  wage  of  an  agricultural  labourer,  then  2d., 
and,  therefore,  that  amount  may,  for  this  purpose,  be  con- 
sidered as  equal  to  perhaps  half-a-crown  of  our  money ; 
a  sheep  was  ten,  and  a  hog  fifteen  times  the  value  of  a 
fowl,  a  cow  four  times  that  of  a  hog,  and  a  horse  four 
times  that  of  a  cow.  The  price  of  corn  was  no  criterion, 
for  it  was  necessarily  so  dependent  upon  the  changing 
character  of  the  seasons  that  Roger  of  Wendover,  one  of 
our  early  chronicler's,  quotes  it  as  being  in  one  year 
eighteen  pence,  and  in  another  six  shillings  the  quarter. 
Taking  the  penny,  therefore,  as  representing  one  shilling 
and  three-pence  of  our  money,  the  respective  prices 
would  be  approximately  as  follows  : — 


Agricul- 
tural Daily 
Wage. 

Fowl. 

Sheep. 

Hog. 

Cow. 

Horse. 

Norman  money  . 

£     s.    d. 
002 

£     s.    d. 
002 

£     s.    d. 
018 

£     s.    d. 
026 

£     s.    d. 
0  10     0 

£ 
2 

Our    money  at 
Is.  3d.  to  the 
Norman  penny 

026 

026 

150 

1   17     6 

7  10     0 

30 

But  in  point  of  fact  such  articles  were  rarely  paid  for  in 
cash,  and  therefore  the  above  figures  more  properly  repre- 
sent their  nominal  value  in  exchange.  Indeed,  William  I 
by  statute  prohibited  any  sale  of  cattle  for  money  save  "in 
the  markets  before  three  witnesses,"  and  it  was  not  until 
the  reign  of  Henry  I  that  even  the  King's  taxes  were, 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    KEIGN    OF    HENRY   I.         7 

"  for  the  most  part,  paid  in  coin  "  instead  of  in  kind  ("  Dia- 
logue of  the  Exchequer").  Nevertheless,  in  the  latter 
reign,  money  appears  to  have  already  entered  sufficiently 
into  the  daily  requirements  of  life  as  to  be  usually  carried 
by  the  general  public ;  for  Wendover,  in  recording  an 
anecdote  of  the  year  1126,  not  only  shows  that  a  man  who 
was  hunting  had  twopence  half-penny  in  his  wallet,  but 
that  he  was  expected  to  have  cash  upon  him,  for  a  men- 
dicant begged  a  "piece  of  money  "  of  him.  In  a  later 
passage,  the  same  authority  incidentally  mentions  that  at 
the  funeral  of  Bishop  Hugh,  A.D.  1200,  a  woman  in  the 
crowd  within  Lincoln  Cathedral  "  had  her  pocket  picked 
of  her  purse."  Thus,  we  may  infer  that,  during  the 
eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries,  the  use  of  money  was 
gradually  superseding  the  ancient  custom  of  barter  and 
payment  in  kind. 

The  Norman  coinage  consisted  solely  of  the  silver  penny, 
which  was,  however,  cut  into  half-pennies  and  farthings 
as  presently  described.  Its  weight,  as  established  by  the 
Conqueror,  and  continued  until  the  reign  of  Edward  I, 
was  22f  grains,  and  its  assay  was  in  the  proportion  of 
11  ozs.  2  dwts.  fine  to  18  dwts.  of  alloy  to  the  pound  troy, 
a  standard  which,  after  many  vicissitudes  of  debasement,  is 
that  of  our  silver  coinage  of  to-day.  The  curious  document, 
"  Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer,"  before  mentioned,  gives  us 
minute  details  of  the  method  then  adopted  to  test  the 
money  of  the  revenue  before  it  was  accepted  from  the 
Sheriffs  of  the  various  Counties  by  the  King's  Exchequer, 
and,  although  it  was  not.  strictly  speaking,  the  trial  of  the 
pix  (which  was  a  similar  test  of  the  money  taken  direct 
from  the  moneyers),  it  was  no  doubt  conducted  upon  an 
identical  system.  A  translated  extract  from  this  twelfth- 
century  record  upon  the  point  may  be  of  interest. 


8  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

"  When  the  money  is  sent  to  the  Exchequer  to  be  counted 
one  of  them  diligently  mixes  the  whole  together,  so  that  the 
better  pieces  may  not  be  by  themselves  and  the  worse  by  them- 
selves, but  mixed  in  order  that  they  may  correspond  in  weight ; 
This  being  done  the  Chamberlain  weighs  in  a  scale  as  much  as 
is  necessary  to  make  a  pound  to  the  Exchequer.  But  if  the 
number  shall  exceed  twenty  shillings  by  more  than  six  pence  in 
a  pound  it  is  considered  unfit  to  be  received  ...  but  of  what- 
ever weight  the  pennies  are  found  to  be  he  puts  apart  into  a 
cup  one  £,  that  is  twenty  shillings  of  them,  of  which  a  test  shall 
be  made.  .  .  .  The  melter  receiving  these  counts  them  with 
his  own  hand  and  then  places  them  on  a  vessel  of  burning 
embers  ...  he  reduces  them  to  a  mass  blowing  upon  them 
and  cleansing  the  silver  .  .  .  and  then  before  the  eyes  of  all 
he  weighs  it  (the  residuum)  with  the  aforesaid  pound  weight. 
Moreover,  he  then  supplies  what  the  fire  has  consumed,  putting 
in  coin  out  of  that  same  box,  until  what  has  been  tested  is  in 
equilibrium." 

The  writer  then  explains  at  considerable  length,  that  if 
the  money  had  been  in  currency,  the  Sheriff  should  be 
allowed  a  depreciation  of  six  pennies  in  the  £,  but  if  it 
was  new,  only  three  or  four.  Beyond  this,  the  loss  fell 
upon  him ; 

"  unless,  perhaps,  the  coins  are  new  and  not  customary,  and 
the  inscription  upon  them  betrays  their  producer,  for  then  that 
moneyer  shall  be  strictly  called  to  account  for  his  work,  and, 
according  to  the  established  laws,  shall  be  condemned  or 
absolved  without  loss  to  the  Sheriff;  but  if,  the  coin  being 
proved  and  reproved  by  testing,  the  moneyer  shall  have  been 
condemned  and  punished,  the  coins  shall  be  reduced  to  a  mass 
by  the  melter  of  the  Exchequer  .  .  .  and  its  weight  shall  be 
computed  to  the  Sheriff.  But  all  this  is  almost  abolished  now 
(circa  1180)  and  much  relaxed ;  since,  with  regard  to  money, 
all  sin  in  common." — Henderson's  Historical  Documents,  p.  28-54. 

This  margin  in  weight  of  six  pennies  in  every  240 
seems  to  have  been  fully  taken  advantage  of  in  the 
minting  of  the  coins  themselves,  for  the  average  weight  of 
the  pennies  of  the  Conqueror,  which  we  possess,  are  a  little 
below  this  net  allowance,  whilst  those  of  William  II 
exactly  tally  with  it.  The  money  of  Henry  I  varies 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.          9 

much  in  this  respect,  according  to  the  actual  date  of  its 
types,  but  the  coins  of  Stephen  "  all  sin  in  common." 

In  the  words  of  the  "  Dialogue,"  "  All  money  of  this 
kingdom  ought  to  have  the  stamped  image  of  the  King  " 
on  the  obverse,  and  this  rule  (with  the  exception  of  a  few 
baronial  coins  in  the  reign  of  Stephen)  was  strictly  adhered 
to  under  the  Norman  dynasty,  but  the  reverse  was  the 
field  for  an  almost  unlimited  variety  of  device  or  type. 

Through  the  centre  of  nearly  every  reverse,  however, 
runs  the  ancient  symbol  of  Christianity,  the  cross,  in  some 
form  or  another, — hence  "cross  andpile" — a  custom  dating 
from  at  least  the  sixth  century,  and  only  discarded  in 
comparatively  recent  times  ;  if,  indeed,  a  survival  of  it  is 
not  still  discernible  on  the  modern  florin.  The  arms  of 
this  cross  were  found  to  be  a  convenient  line  of  guidance 
for  the  shears,  and  the  Saxon  and  Norman  half-pence  and 
farthings  were  formed  by  simply  severing  the  penny  into 
equal  sections  in  this  manner.  So  strictly  was  this  line 
observed  in  cutting  the  coin  that,  if  the  cross  exists  and  is 
not  followed  by  the  severance,  it  is  sufficient  to  arouse 
suspicion  that  the  coin  is  merely  a  broken  penny  converted 
into  a  cut  half-penny. 

It  is  true  that  round  silver  half-pennies,  or  what  are 
believed  to  be  half-pennies,  were  for  a  short  period  issued 
in  England  in  the  reigns  of  Alfred  the  Great  and  his 
immediate  successors,  but  they  seem  soon  to  have  been 
supplanted  by  these  cut  coins,  which  were  certainly  in 
existence  at  the  same  time  or  immediately  afterwards. 
Perhaps  the  earliest  specimens  extant  of  these  cut  coins 
are  a  severed  half-penny  of  Siefred  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  another  in  Major  Creeke's  collection  of  Anlaf,  both  of 
Northumbria  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century.  Their 
origin  may  have  arisen  of  necessity  when  the  copper  styca, 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  C 


10  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

or  mite,  of  that  country,  was  superseded  by  the  southern  or 
perhaps  Danish  penny  in  the  ninth  century,  and  smaller 
change  must  have  been  much  in  demand.  Perhaps  the 
people  originally  severed  the  penny  themselves,  but  this 
was  not  so  in  later  times,  and  in  the  days  of  Henry  I  the 
cut  half-pennies  and  farthings  were  certainly,  as  such, 
issued  direct  from  the  mint. 

As  this  statement  is  not  in  accordance  with  popular 
opinion,  one  or  two  reasons  may  be  given  for  it.  In  1108, 
Henry  issued  a  mandate  against  debasement  of  the  coinage, 
which,  according  to  the  contemporary  chroniclers  (Flor- 
ence of  Worcester  ;  Simeon  of  Durham ;  Roger  de  Hove- 
den,  &c.),  concluded  with  the  words: — 

"  and  that  no  penny  or  halfpenny  (obolus)  which  he  also 
ordered  to  be  of  a  round  form,  or  even  a  farthing  if  it  were 
perfect  should  be  refused." 

The  parenthesis  that  the  half-penny  in  future  must  be  of 
a  round  form  can  only  have  been  a  direction  to  the 
moneyers,  for  no  one  else  could  be  affected  by  it.  More- 
over, if  they  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  issuing  the  cut 
half-pennies,  something  more  than  a  mere  direction  as 
to  its  shape  would  have  been  necessary,  before  a  half- 
penny could  have  become  legal  tender  and  current  coin. 
This  direction  in  the  middle  of  a  proclamation  against 
debasement  seems  out  of  place,  until  light  is  thrown  upon 
it  by  an  examination  of  the  cut  half-pennies  themselves. 
We  have,  perhaps,  a  hundred  or  two  of  these  coins  issued 
in  Norman  times,  and  it  is  significant  that,  when  weighed 
against  the  pennies,  it  requires  some  twenty- seven  or 
twenty-eight  of  them  to  equal  a  dozen  pennies  of  the  same 
types,  and  no  two  half-pennies  have  yet  been  found  when 
put  together  to  compose  the  original  penny.  The  trial  of 
the  pix  would  detect  a  short-weight  penny,  but,  with  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    RE1ON   OF   HENRY    I.       11 

cut  half-penny,  the  money er  was  safe,  for  he  could  sever 
the  penny  nearly,  but  not  quite  through  the  centre,  issue 
the  lighter  portion  and  return  the  heavier  to  the  crucible, 
then,  if  any  question  arose,  the  heavier  segment  would  be 
presumed  to  be  somewhere  in  circulation. 

The  fact  that  the  fees,  payable  by  the  public  upon  con- 
verting a  pound  of  bullion  into  the  240  pennies  into 
which  it  was  coined,  were  sixteen  pence  half-penny,  tends 
to  show  that  the  moneyers  issued  that  coin  in  change. 
And  part  of  the  miracle  in  Wendover's  account  of  the  con- 
version of  St.  Wulfric  (the  hunter  of  1126)  rests  upon  the 
presence  of  two  pennies  and  a  half  Q^  "  the  new  coinage  " 
in  his  wallet,  whereas,  if  the  money  had  already  been  in 
circulation,  and  so  cut  by  the  people,  the  incident  would 
have  been  nothing  out  of  the  common. 

No  doubt  it  was  Henry's  intention  that  a  round  half- 
penny should  be  issued.  The  coinage  would  have  been 
improved,  and  more  fees  received  by  the  Crown,  for  the 
dies,  but  what  was  the  inducement  to  the  moneyers  ?  To 
the  honest,  it  meant  double  the  work  of  striking  pennies 
and  more  dies  to  pay  for,  without  any  additional  return. 
To  the  dishonest,  it  offered  no  temptation,  for  a  round 
half-penny  would  have  been  as  easy  to  test  by  the  pix  as 
the  penny.  Therefore  the  moneyers  seern  to  have  placed 
a  broad  interpretation  upon  the  order,  which,  in  view  of 
the  explanation  of  its  insertion  just  given,  it  very  fairly 
bears,  namely,  "  If  you  issue  half -pennies  at  all  they  must 
in  future  be  of  a  round  form."  As  a  result  none  were 
issued,  and  although  we  have  the  cut  specimens  of  the 
types  prior  to  this  date — 1108 — we  have  none  for  many 
years  afterwards,  until  just  previous  to  1125,  when  the 
coinage  once  more  fell  into  a  debased  condition,  and  the 
severest  penalties  were  enforced  against  the  moneyers. 


12  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

That  no  such  thing  as  a  round  half -penny  was  issued  at 
this  period  seems  quite  clear,  for  not  only  is  there  no  evi- 
dence of  it  in  our  finds  of  Henry's  coins,  but  anything  of 
the  kind  was  quite  unknown  previous  to  John's  issue  of 
the  round  Irish  half-pennies.  Otherwise  Wendover, 
writing  of  them  in  1210,  would  not  have  suggested  that 
the  latter  at  last  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Merlin  that "  the 
tokens  of  commerce  should  be  divided,  and  the  half  round." 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  cut  coins  were  not  finally  abolished 
until  the  reign  of  Edward  I,  when,  under  the  year  1279, 
Florence  of  Worcester's  continuator  records  that : — 

"An  alteration  was  made  in  the  English  coinage,  the  triangular 
farthing  being  changed  to  a  round  one,  but  the  old  current 
money  was  for  a  time  allowed  to  remain  in  circulation." 

The  "  triangular  farthing "  can  only  refer  to  the  cut 
quarter-penny,  and  as  it  was  "  current  money  "  it  must 
have  been  issued  by  the  money ers.  Further,  such  half- 
pence and  farthings  issued  to  the  close  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  III  are  common  enough  in  our  cabinets. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   SUCCESSION    OF   TYPES   AND   THE   LEGAL   TENDER. 

THE  student  of  Domesday  will  notice,  in  the  accounts  of 
various  mints,  a  constant  repetition  of  the  entry  that,  in 
addition  to  their  rent,  the  moneyers  paid  certain  fees  to 
the  King  whenever  the  money  was  changed.  These  fees 
were  for  the  new  dies,  and  the  change  of  the  money  implies 
the  issue  of  a  fresh  type.  The  natural  result  of  this  method 
of  procedure  was  that,  as  money  was  always  in  demand, 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       13 

and  the  means  of  obtaining  it  so  readily  at  the  King's 
command,  proclamations  of  new  coinages  became,  in  Saxon 
times,  more  and  more  frequent,  until,  during  the  twenty- 
five  years  of  Edward  the  Confessor's  reign,  we  know  that 
at  least  a  dozen  distinct  types  were  issued. 

To  proclaim  a  new  coinage  without  placing  some  re- 
striction upon  the  currency  of  the  old  would  have  been 
quite  useless.  The  moneyers  would  have  continued  to  use 
their  old  dies  rather  than  pay  for  new  ones,  and  it  would 
have  been  no  hardship  to  the  people,  as  we  are  expressly 
told  it  was,  unless  they  were  periodically  compelled  to 
change  their  old  money  for  new — or  as  the  "  Dialogue  of 
the  Exchequer"  calls  it,  "  present  money," — thus  contribu- 
ting large  fees  to  the  moneyers,  who  in  turn  contributed 
to  the  Exchequer.  How  little  mere  surmise  there  is  in 
this  may  be  shown  by  reference  to  any  of  the  hoards  of  the 
period,  which,  though  probably  representing  someone's 
savings  of  many  years  or  "  the  family  stocking,"  never 
contain  more  than  four  or  five  different  types  at  the  most. 
Compare  this  with  the  finds  deposited  during  the  Stuart 
period,  when  a  greater  margin  of  legal  tender  was  allowed, 
and  we  discover  in  the  latter,  coins  of  as  many  different 
Sovereigns — to  say  nothing  of  their  various  coinages — 
as  there  were  types  in  the  earlier  finds  ;  and  to-day,  £20 
in  silver  would  probably  contain  more  varieties  of  types 
than  any  of  the  finds  of  coins  of  either  Henry  I  or 
Stephen.  Thus,  in  early  times,  the  limit  of  legal  tender 
must  have  very  closely  followed  upon  the  coinage  of  the 
day,  or  otherwise  twenty  or  thirty  types  at  least  would 
have  found  their  way  into  the  larger  hoards. 

This  system  of  constant  change  in  the  tender  appears 
to  have  been  carried  to  excess  in  later  Saxon  times,  and 
was  naturally  a  great  hardship  to  the  people,  who  were 


14  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

put  to  the  cost  of  renewing  their  money  so  often,  and 
therefore,  at  some  time  subsequent  to  the  Conquest,  the 
tax  of  Monetagium  was  introduced.  This  was,  in  effect,  a 
compact  between  King  and  people,  that  in  return  for  a 
hearth  tax  of  twelve  pence,  payable  every  third  year,  the 
money  should  not  be  changed  oftener  than  once  in  that 
period.  There  is  one  reference  to  "  monedagium  "  (sic)  in 
Domesday  (under  Lincoln),  hence  it  was  probably  intro- 
duced by  the  first  William  to  propitiate  his  new  subjects, 
as  the  lesser  of  two  evils,  although  it  is  usually  credited 
to  Ralph  Flambard,  the  extortionate  Justiciary  of  Rufus. 
But,  whatever  its  actual  date,  it  is  clear  that  it  soon 
became  far  more  unpopular  than  the  old  custom  which  it 
was  intended  to  ameliorate.  If  it  was  instituted  imme- 
diately after  the  Conquest,  it  certainly  did  not  restrict  the 
number  of  new  coinages  to  one  in  every  three  years,  for  we 
have  examples  of  nearly  a  score  of  distinct  types  issued 
during  the  thirty-four  years  of  the  reigns  of  the  two 
Williams.  But  if  we  accept  it  as  referring  to  changes  in 
legal  tender  for  the  time  being,  then,  as  the  finds  prove 
that  two  or  three  types,  though  issued  successively,  were 
always  retained  in  currency  at  the  same  time,  the  period 
exactly  suffices  for  a  change  every  third  year. 

The  more  diplomatic  Henry  at  once  abolished  this  tax 
by  his  Coronation  Charter,  in  which  he  says :  "  Mone- 
tagium commune  quod  capiebatur  per  civitates  et  comi- 
tatus  quod  non  fuit  tempore  regis  Edwardi  hoc  ne  amodo 
fiat  omnino  defendo."  This,  however,  was  a  doubtful 
benefit  to  the  people,  as  it  left  him  a  free  hand  to  change 
the  tender  as  often  as  he  wished,  and  as  his  hold  of  the 
Crown  strengthened  he  seems  to  have  more  frequently 
exercised  the  privilege.  For  instance,  the  two  earliest 
hoards  deposited  in  his  reign  contained  four  or  fiye 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       15 

different  types,  whilst  the  last  two  disclose  only  one  or 
two  types.  Moreover,  during  his  reign  of  thirty-five  years, 
he  issued  no  fewer  than  fifteen  distinct  coinages,  and  it  is 
little  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  moneyers,  who  thus  had 
so  many  extra  fees  to  pay,  should  have  endeavoured  to 
recoup  themselves  from  the  public  by  debasing  and  light- 
ening the  coinage. 

Stephen's  pecuniary  necessities  no  doubt  compelled  him 
to  continue  the  system  during  his  troubled  reign,  but  on 
the  accession  of  Henry  II  it  was  abolished,  for  the  civil 
wars  of  the  former  had  shaken  the  stability  of  the  Crown  and 
strengthened  the  power  of  the  people,  and  from  that  time 
to  the  days  of  Henry  VIII,  no  King  of  England  ventured 
to  tamper  with  the  coinage  for  the  purpose  of  his  indi- 
vidual gain. 

So  drastic  and  popular  was  this  reform  that  the  custom 
of  frequent  changes  in  the  coinage  was  carried  from  one 
extreme  to  the  other.  Henry  II  only  issued  two  coin- 
ages, and  probably  if  the  first  had  not  been  of  wretched 
workmanship,  the  second  would  never  have  been  required. 
The  coins  of  his  first  issue,  known  as  the  "  Tealby  type," 
are  so  angular  in  shape,  that  one  can  readily  understand 
John  de  Taxter,  who  used  them,  describing  the  second 
type  by  contrast  as  "  a  new  coinage,  of  a  round  shape, 
struck  in  England."  This  was  the  famous  "  short  cross 
type,"  which,  as  Sir  John  Evans  discovered,  was  continued 
unchanged,  even  as  to  the  King's  name,  throughout  the 
reigns  of  Henry  II's  two  sons  and  into  that  of  his 
grandson.  During  the  whole  period  of  its  issue,  there 
could  have  been  no  change  in  the  limit  of  legal  tender,  for 
there  was  no  line  of  demarcation  upon  the  coins  themselves 
by  which  it  could  be  defined.  Any  doubts  entertained 
that  Richard  and  John  did,  in  fact,  continue  their  father's 


16  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

coinage  unchanged,  may  be  set  at  rest  by  reference  to 
De  Taxter,  under  the  year  1205,  for  he  tells  us  that  "  The 
money  issued  long  before  in  the  year  1158  was  this  year 
recoined." 

In  the  face,  therefore,  of  these  extracts  from  De  Taxter, 
and  of  similar  statements  to  be  found  in  nearly  all  the 
chroniclers  of  the  Norman  period,  as,  for  instance,  the 
expression  in  Wendover,  "for  at  that  time  (1126)  there 
was  a  new  coinage  in  England  in  the  days  of  Henry  I," 
and  further  of  the  constant  references  in  Domesday  to  pay- 
ments "  when  the  money  was  changed  "  ;  and  again  of  the 
direct  evidence  of  our  hoards,  it  is  surely  impossible  to 
argue  that  the  various  types  of  our  coinage  were  not  issued 
then,  as  they  are  now,  in  strict  succession  throughout  the 
whole  country.  •  But  when  we  come  to  the  consideration 
of  Henry's  types,  and  the  local  history  of  the  various 
mints  from  which  they  were  issued,  this  fact  will  be 
abundantly  proved. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    MINTS. 

As  the  issuing  of  money  was  in  its  origin  a  strictly  royal 
privilege,  it  follows  that,  in  the  earliest  times,  the  cur- 
rency, like  the  laws,  would  emanate  from  the  centre  of 
government  in  every  state  or  division,  for  it  was  but  little 
required  by  the  people,  and  one  mint  must  have  been  ample 
for  a  large  district.  Thus  the  Romans  in  Britain  governed 
the  country  from  a  general  centre  of  operations,  changed 
from  time  to  time,  and  it  is  probable  that  whatever 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       17 

coinage  was  issued  by  them  in  this  country  was  minted 
at  such  centre. 

On  the  division  of  England  under -the  early  Saxons,  as 
each  King  would  coin  from  his  centre  of  government  for 
the  time  being,  there  would,  as  yet,  arise  no  more  necessity 
for  the  name  of  the  mint  to  appear  on  the  coins  than  there 
is  to-day,  for  each  state  would  have  but  one  mint.  The 
name  of  the  moneyer  only  would  be  required,  so  that  his 
responsibility  for  their  issue  could  be  traced,  and  thus  on 
the  coinage  of  that  period  we  find  the  names  of  the  various 
moneyers  unaccompanied  by  that  of  any  place  of  mintage. 

As  the  power  of  the  Church  increased,  the  Archbishops 
of  Canterbury  were  granted,  or  had  already  acquired,  the 
privilege  of  coinage  in  the  eighth  century ;  and  so  long 
as  the  centre  of  government  of  Kent  was  at  Canterbury, 
and  the  money,  both  regal  and  archiepiscopal,  was  issued 
there,  it  was  unnecessary  to  name  the  mint.  But 
towards  the  end  of  that  century,  when  Offa,  King  of 
Mercia,  whose  centre  of  government,  and  therefore  of 
coinage,  was  in  that  country,  subdued  Kent,  there  would, 
for  the  first  time,  be  two  places  of  mintage  contem- 
poraneously issuing  money  under  one  Sovereign.  The 
difficulty  of  identification  would  not  immediately  be 
apparent,  for  the  regal  and  archiepiscopal  coins  were 
obviously  dissimilar.  But  as  OfFa's  action  had  shown 
that  it  did  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  regal  currency 
of  a  State  was  issued  from  its  own  capital,  Baldred,  on 
his  accession  to  the  Kingdom  of  Kent  in  805,  introduced 
the  custom  of  adding  the  name  of  the  place  of  issue — Can- 
terbury— upon  some  of  his  coins,  and  Vulfred,  his  Arch- 
bishop, did  likewise. 

This  custom  gradually  gained  ground  until,  during  the 
troubled  reign  of  Alfred,  when  the  seat  of  government 

VOL.  I.  FOURTH  SERIES.  D 


18  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

was  so  often  changed,  we  find  upon  the  coins  the  names 
of  at  least  seven  cities  in  the  southern  half  of  England, 
but  there  seems  no  'reason  to  suppose  that  each  had  not 
been  for  a  time  the  centre  of  government  for  its  dis- 
trict. 

It  is,  however,  in  the  famous  law  of  Athelstan  that  we 
find  the  establishment  of  a  general  coinage  throughout 
the  country,  which  should  be  continued  irrespective  of 
changes  of  government,  for  by  it  he  provided  permanent 
mints  in  many  of  the  most  populated  portions  of  the 
Kingdom.  This  law  was  the  result  of  a  great  synod  at 
"  Greatanlea,"  and  it  was  only  natural  that,  in  the  distri- 
bution of  so  profitable  a  privilege  as  the  regal  mintage,  the 
Church  should  stipulate  for  some  share  in  it,  and  thus  we 
find  that  in  the  larger  districts,  where  several  money ers 
were  required,  they  are  divided  between  Church  and 
State,  some  being  under  the  King  and  some  under  the 
Bishop  of  the  diocese,  or  even  the  Abbot.  The  eflfects  of 
this  concession  were  far  more  reaching  than  could  prob- 
ably be  anticipated.  Now  that  the  profits  of  coinage 
were  no  longer  the  sole  prerogative  of  the  Crown  or  of 
the  Archbishops,  it  was  only  to  be  expected  that  the 
great  Ealdormen,  whose  power  in  their  provinces  was 
often  only  secondary  to  that  of  the  King  himself, 
would  petition  for  privileges  similar  to  those  of  the 
Bishops  and  Abbots,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  from 
the  subsequent  evidence  given  us  in  Domesday  that  they 
obtained  them.  There  would,  however,  be  this  dis- 
tinction between  the  position  of  the  grantees  under  Athel- 
stan's  law  and  that  of  those  who  claimed  under  subsequent 
and  individual  charters  of  favour.  The  former  would  be 
confirmed  under  the  general  charter  of  privileges  granted 
by  each  King  on  his  accession,  but  the  latter  would  also 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       19 

require  charters  of  confirmation  to  the  heir  upon  the 
death  of  each  grantee.  In  other  words,  one  of  the  latter 
grants  was  a  purely  personal  privilege — as  at  that  time, 
indeed,  was  the  tenure  of  the  land  itself  to  which  it  was 
attached — only  exercisable  by  the  grantee  himself  ;  it  was 
therefore  dormant  during  his  absence  abroad,  and  became 
extinct  upon  his  death  until  regranted  to  his  heir.  More- 
over, it  required  a  confirmation  charter  upon  the  accession 
of  every  King.  It  must  not,  however,  be  imagined  that 
a  separate  charter  dealing  with  the  right  of  coinage  was 
required  on  the  succession  of  the  lord  or  grantee,  as  the 
general  words  in  the  usual  charter  accepting  service  from 
him  for  all  hia  lands  and  honours  and  confirming  his 
rights  therein,  included  the  minting  rights,  whether 
specified  or  not.  The  effect  of  this  was,  that  the  power  of 
issuing  the  King's  money  from  a  mint  granted  by  charter 
to  an  individual  was  strictly  confined  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  particular  mint,  and  entailed  the  presence  of  the 
grantee  in  his  lordship  at  the  time  of  such  issue. 

There  was,  however,  nothing  special  in  the  local  and 
personal  character  of  this  tenure  of  a  mint  by  grant, 
for  it  applied  to  most,  if  not  to  all,  of  the  privileges 
accorded  by  a  Sovereign  to  a  subject.  Knight's  service, 
Grand  Serjeanty,  Cornage,  and,  in  fact,  all  early  tenures 
and  privileges  from  the  Crown,  were  of  a  personal  charac- 
ter for  a  life  estate  only  and  entailed  personal  service. 
But,  perhaps,  an  exactly  parallel  instance  was  that  of 
the  Court  Baron,  for  this  originally  could  only  be  held 
by  the  lord  himself,  and  within  the '  manor.  Too  much 
importance  cannot  be  given  to  this  question,  for  it  ex- 
plains the  intermittent  character  of  the  issue  of  most  of 
the  mints  in  England  from  the  days  of  Athelstan  to  those 
of  Edward  I,  when  the  feudal  character  of  the  coinage 


20  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

was  entirely  changed.  If  the  lord  were  non-resident  in 
his  barony,  there  could  be  no  coinage  at  the  mint  or 
mints  of  which  he  was  grantee  within  it.  Nor,  in  any 
case,  after  a  new  King's  accession  until  a  confirmation 
charter  had  been  granted  to  him. 

In  the  unfortunate  reign  of  Ethelred  II  three  causes 
tended  to  spread  these  chartered  mints  throughout  the 
country.  First,  the  imposition  of  Danegelt,  which  was  the 
earliest  land  tax  levied  in  England,  and  which,  requir- 
ing an  enormous  coinage,  rendered  a  mint  a  most  profit- 
able possession.  Second,  the  King's  pecuniary  difficulties, 
which  induced  him  to  constantly  issue  fresh  coinages  for 
the  sake  of  the  fees  they  brought  in,  thereby  necessitating 
the  frequent  change  in  the  tender,  until,  in  view  of  the 
difficulties  of  locomotion,  it  was  essential  that  the  people 
should  have  the  means  of  changing  their  money  almost 
at  their  doors.  Third,  the  weakness  of  the  Crown,  which 
prohibited  a  refusal  of  the  right  of  a  mint  to  any  power- 
ful petitioner.  Thus,  at  the  commencement  of  Ethelred's 
reign,  there  were  not  a  score  of  mints,  whilst  at  its 
close  there  were  over  fifty. 

This  condition  of  the  coinage  obtained  until  the  acces- 
sion of  Henry  II,  when,  as  we  have  seen,  the  arbitrary 
system  of  frequent  changes  in  the  tender  was  abolished, 
and  thus  a  mint  was  no  longer  a  profitable  privilege. 
The  result  was  remarkable.  The  number  of  mints  in 
England  immediately  dropped  from  fifty  under  Stephen, 
to  about  thirty-five  in  Henry  II's  first  type,  and  to  seven- 
teen or  eighteen  in  his  second,  showing  that  most  of  the 
grantees  of  the  chartered  mints  entirely  ceased  to  exer- 
cise, or  were  refused  a  renewal  of  their  privileges.  Or  to 
put  it  in  the  words  of  Hoveden,  in  his  oft-quoted  but 
misinterpreted  passage : — 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN   OF    HENRY    I.      21 

"  In  the  reign  of  Stephen  all  the  influential  men,  both 
bishops  as  well  as  Earls  and  Barons,  coined  their  own  money. 
But  from  the  time  when  the  Duke  (Henry  II)  came  over,  he 
rendered  null  the  coin  of  most  of  them." 

If  the  reader  will  glance  for  a  moment  at  Ruding's 
Annals  of  the  Coinage,  vol.  ii.,  he  will  notice  that  upon 
four  out  of  every  five  mints  described  a  comment  is  made 
to  this  effect :  "  This  mint  is  not  mentioned  in  Domesday, 
but  it  was  worked  as  appears  by  coins  of  William  I 
now  remaining  of  it,"  but  no  explanation  is  offered  by 
Ruding.  To  understand  the  apparent  omission  one  must 
consider  what  the  primary  object  of  Domesday  was.  The 
Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us  that — 

In  1085  King  William  "  sent  his  men  throughout  England, 
into  every  shire,  and  caused  them  to  ascertain  how  many  hun- 
dred hides  of  land  it  contained,  and  what  lands  the  King  pos- 
sessed therein,  what  cattle  there  were  in  the  several  counties, 
and  how  much  revenue  he  ought  to  receive  yearly  from  each." 

The  explanation  is  now  quite  clear.  Where  the  King 
then  received  the  whole  or  any  portion  of  the  firma  or 
rent  of  the  mint,  it  was  duly  credited  in  the  returns,  but 
where  such  had  been  granted  to  the  baron  or  lord 
entirely,  as  was  the  case  in  nearly,  if  not  al!3  the  mints  of 
minor  importance,  it  would  have  been  worse  than  useless- 
— nay,  a  blunder — to  have  returned  it  in  the  revenue 
which  "the  King  ought  to  receive  yearly  from  each 
county." 

We  may,  therefore,  accept  Domesday  in  toto,  as  showing 
us  what  mints  in  the  year  1086,  or  thereabouts,  still 
coined  as  a  whole  or  in  part,  under  the  King's  direct 
authority,  though  they  were  often  farmed  by  him  to  the 
burgesses  of  their  towns.  But  all  other  mints  then  in 
existence  were  in  the  hands  of  grantees  of  the  Crown 
under  charter.  This  is  the  more  apparent  because,  in 


22  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

several  instances,  Domesday  shows,  by  some  incidental 
reference  to  a  moneyer,  or  to  the  mint  as  a  house,  that 
the  latter  was  then  in  being,  and  yet  no  return  is  made 
of  its  revenue.  There  were,  however,  some  changes  or 
grants  of  the  royal  mints  between  that  year  and  the 
accession  of  Henry  I  in  1100,  although,  in  most  cases, 
the  position  appears  to  have  been  retained. 

But  there  is  this  marked  constitutional  difference 
between  the  powers  of  the  mints  returned  in  Domesday 
as  accounting  for  their  firma  directly  to  the  Crown,  and 
of  those  which  are  not.  The  former  coined  under  the 
authority  of  the  King,  and  therefore  were  enabled  to  do  so 
continuously,  type  after  type ;  the  latter  had  only  power 
to  issue  their  money  during  the  residence  in  his  barony 
of  their  immediate  lord,  and  therefore  their  output  was 
intermittent,  according  to  such  lord's  presence  or  absence. 

During  the  Saxon  period  this  distinction  was  not  so 
important  as  after  the  Conquest,  for  the  Saxon  lords 
were  resident  here,  but  the  Norman  barons,  in  whom  the 
chartered  mints  were  vested,  spent  more  of  their  time 
abroad  than  in  England,  and  during  Henry  Fs  wars  in 
Normandy,  the  absence  of  the  grantees  caused  these  mints 
to  be  dormant  for  long  intervals,  and  this  circumstance 
accounts  for  the  great  rarity  in  our  cabinets  of  the  types 
current  in  England  during  certain  years  of  the  reign. 

Until  now  the  general  impression  seems  to  have  pre- 
vailed, that  every  mint  of  a  reign  issued  a  complete 
series  of  the  King's  types,  and  that,  if  we  could  only  dig 
long  enough,  we  should  find  every  type  for  every  mint ; 
that  our  Norman  forefathers  had.  as  perfect  a  system  of 
government  mints  in  constant  operation  throughout  the 
land,  as  we  have  local  post-offices  to-day,  and,  in  the 
words  of  our  standard  authorities,  "  that  our  early  records, 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       23 

"  Domesday,  the  chronicles,  charters,  and  supposed  enact- 
"  ments,  and  the  coins  as  we  now  have  them,  throw  no 
"light  upon  each  other."  These  are  the  theories  which  it 
is  here  the  primary  object  to  controvert  and  the  impor- 
tance of  the  attempt  to  prove,  that  an  absolutely  contrary 
system  of  coinage  existed,  must  be  the  apology  for  the 
length  of  this  treatise. 

It  is  now  claimed  that  those  mints  which  are  not  in- 
cluded in  the  Domesday  Survey,  and  those  which  are 
mentioned  as  having  been  the  King's  in  the  time  of 
the  Confessor  but  are  not  returned  as  King  William's  in 
1086,  and,  again,  those  from  which  the  King  only  re- 
ceived a  portion  of  the  revenue,  were  chartered  mints. 
Therefore,  a  study  of  their  history  will  at  once  disclose 
the  years  during  which  only  there  could  have  been  an 
issue  of  coinage  from  those  mints.  The  proof  in  support 
of  this  claim  will  commence  with  the  history  of  the  first 
of  Henry's  mints,  and  finish  with  that  of  the  last.  It 
will  be  followed  throughout  the  coinage  of  Stephen,  and 
sufficient  has  been  noted  of  the  history  of  the  mints  under 
the  Williams  to  show  that  they  are  no  exceptions  to  this 
rule. 

With  the  result  of  this  reasoning — discovery  if  you 
like — before  us,  the  whole  difficulty  of  appropriating  to 
their  respective  reigns  the  various  types,  now  classed 
together,  of  the  two  Williams  disappears,  and  it  becomes 
as  easy  to  assign  the  true  order  of  their  succession,  and  to 
ascertain  the  particular  years  during  which  each  type  was 
issued,  as  it  has  here  been  to  assort  the  much  scarcer  coins 
of  Henry  I.  We  have  consequently  the  material  for  a 
similar  work  upon  the  general  Norman  coinage  which  is 
now  in  progress. 

But  the  question  is  not  confined  to  numismatics  alone. 


24  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

It  will  help  to  check,  and  perhaps  correct,  many  histori- 
cal dates  and  events.  If  the  history  of  a  particular  mint 
serves  to  fix  the  dates  of  its  coinage,  so  the  coinage  of  a 
mint  should  fix  the  dates  of  its  history.  Only  one  example 
need  now  be  given.  The  creation  of  the  Earldom  of 
Gloucester  in  Henry's  reign  has  been  assigned  at  various 
times  to  half-a-dozen  years  between  1105  and  1122.  But 
Mr.  Bound,  in  his  exhaustive  work  Geoffrey  de  Handeville, 
recently  proved  the  true  date  to  be  1121- June  1123.  When 
Robert  Fitz-Roy  obtained  the  Earldom  of  Gloucester  he 
became  the  grantee  of  the  mints  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol, 
and  the  first  type  he  issued — and  he  issued  it  concurrently 
from  both  mints — was  the  one  for  the  years  1121-1123, 
and  his  coins  of  it  could  not  have  been  issued  later  than 
the  spring  of  the  latter  year  (see  Bristol  and  Gloucester). 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   MONEYERS   AND   THEIR   DIES. 

FROM  the  eminent  position  of  his  name  upon  the  reverse 
of  the  coinage,  one  would  have  thought  that  the  moneyer 
was  a  high  official  of  State,  but  this  is  far  from  being  a 
fact.  In  the  earliest  Saxon  times,  perhaps,  he  was  an 
officer  of  the  Crown  attendant  on  the  King's  person,  and 
the  designer  of  his  own  dies ;  hence  the  moneyers  of  the 
royal  mints  seem  to  have  retained  certain  privileges,  for 
they  remained  men  of  importance  and  tenants  in  capite  of 
the  Crown.  But,  as  the  demand  for  coin  increased,  and 
the  mints  became  gradually  extended  throughout  the 
country,  the  respective  offices  of  designer  of  the  coinage 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       25 

and  of  the  local  moneyer  became  separate  of  necessity. 
The  designer  or  cuneator  seems  to  have  remained  an 
individual  official  of  the  Exchequer,  but  the  moneyers 
of  the  chartered  mints  at  least,  as  they  increased  in 
number,  sank  in  importance  until,  in  the  reign  of  the 
Confessor,  we  have  three  or  four  hundred  of  them  coining 
at  one  time  or  another,  amongst  the  seventy  mints  or  so 
of  that  reign. 

It  is  almost  needless  to  remark  that,  when  fresh  types, 
or  coinages,  as  they  were  then  called,  were  issued  through- 
out England  every  two  or  three  years,  their  designs  and 
dies  must  have  emanated  from  one  common  centre,  or  no 
such  issues  could  have  been  simultaneous.  Originally,  no 
doubt,  this  centre  was  at  Winchester,  but  at  some  time 
prior  to  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  probably  soon  after  the 
Conquest,  it  was  removed  to  London.  As  one  would 
naturally  expect,  the  head  of  this  centre  was  the  king's 
goldsmith,  and,  in  the  reigri  of  William  I,  he  was  Otto 
(or  Otho)  Aurifaber.  Otto  the  goldsmith  is  mentioned  in 
Domesday  as  holding  lands  in  Essex  and  Suffolk,  and  it 
would  seem,  from  certain  writs  of  the  Exchequer,  issued 
in  the  reigns  of  Henry  III  and  Edward  I,  that  he  and 
his  descendants  held  these  lands  and  others  subsequently 
granted  to  them  in  petit  serjeanty  as  cutters  and  keepers  of 
the  king's  dies.  This  shows  that  the  office  was  strictly  here- 
ditary, and  it  remained  in  the  family,  though  not  always 
exercised  by  its  members,  until  the  reign  of  Richard  II. 

That  Otto  was  the  engraver  of  the  types  is  quite  clear 
from  various  Exchequer  records,  but  that  he  was  the 
designer  of  them  can  only  be  inferred  from  his  position, 
and  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  a  separate  official  for 
that  purpose.  But  Orderic  tells  us  that : — 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  E 


26  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

In  1087,  Rufus  "  delivered  to  Otho  Aurifaber  a  large  quan- 
tity of  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones,  ordering  him  to  erect  ^a 
monument  of  extraordinary  magnificence  over  his  father's 
(William  I)  tomb.  Accordingly,  in  obedience  to  the  royal 
commands,  he  executed  the  work  in  an  admirable  manner,  and 
the  tomb  may  be  seen  resplendent  with  gold,  silver  and  gems." 

Surely  the  man  to  whom  the  design  of  the  famous  tomb 
of  the  Conqueror  at  Caen  was  entrusted  was  no  mere  die- 
sinker  ;  and  so  we  may  safely  take  it  for  granted  that  he 
was  also  the  designer  of  the  coinage. 

Otto  the  elder  died  in  1101,  and  Henry  I  then  con- 
firmed the  office  to  his  son,  Otto  the  younger  (see  page  47). 
He,  in  turn,  died  before  1130,  and  in  that  year,  as  we 
shall  presently  see  (pages  87  and  97),  his  son  William 
Fitz  Otho  came  of  age  and  succeeded  him.  The  family 
had  now  acquired  great  wealth,  for  William  Fitz  Otho 
received  rents  from  several  counties,  a  clerk  of  his  is 
mentioned  in  the  roll  of  1130,  and  it  is  recorded  that 
one  of  his  men  was  killed  in  Devonshire. 

We  have  thus  some  material  evidence  that  the  Norman 
coinages  were  designed  and  engraved  by  Otto  the  gold- 
smith and  his  descendants,  and  the  only  question  now 
remaining  is  as  to  who  cut  the  working  dies  ?  From  a 
numismatist's  point  of  view  it  would  be  more  interesting 
to  think  that  these  were  made  at  the  respective  mints,  and 
that  when  we  hold  a  coin  of  some  outlying  mint  in  our 
hands,  we  should  see  the  local  work  of  that  mint  complete 
in  miniature  handicraft.  But,  unfortunately,  such  was 
not  the  case  in  the  reigns  of  the  Norman  kings,  or  at  least 
the  presumptive  evidence  is  against  it.  During  the  sieges 
and  counter- sieges  of  Stephen's  reign,  however,  there  were 
numerous  exceptions,  and  in  this  fact  lies  not  the  least  of 
the  attractions  which  make  the  study  of  his  coins  more 
interesting  than  that  of  the  coinage  of  any  other  reign. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       27 

The  presumptive  evidence  that  the  working  dies  were 
sunk  and  issued  by  the  workmen  of  Otto  and  his 
descendants  at  London  has  to  be  gathered  from  numerous 
documents  and  then  compared  as  a  whole.  Domes- 
day, when  giving  the  returns  of  the  mints  in  which 
the  king  still  retained  an  interest,  frequently  repeats 
the  expression  :  "  Quando  moneta  vertebatur  guisque  mone- 
tarius  dabat  xx  solidos  ad  Londoniam  pro  cuneis  monetcB 
ucdpiendis"  (Worcester).  To  pay  the  money  to  London 
for  receiving  the  dies  is  not  quite  the  same  as  to  pay 
the  money  for  receiving  the  dies  from  London,  and  it 
might  be  argued  that,  in  any  case,  when  a  fresh  type 
was  issued,  a  pair  of  dies  or  devices  must  have  been  dis- 
tributed to  each  mint  from  which  the  working  dies  could 
be  copied.  Henry  I,  in  confirming  the  privileges  of  a 
mint  to  the  Abbot  of  Bury  St.  Edmunds,  directed  the 
writ  to  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  (as  the  Spiritual  Lord),  to 
his  Justiciaries  or  Sheriffs,  and  to  Otto  the  Goldsmith  of 
London  (Otto  the  younger).  The  inclusion  of  Otto  in 
this  writ  could  only  be  for  the  purpose  of  a  direction  to 
him  to  supply  the  Abbot  with  the  necessary  dies.  The 
Pipe  Roll  of  1130  records  the  murder  of  one  of  William 
Fitz  Otho's  men  in  Devonshire,  which  suggests  the  proba- 
bility that  he  was  there  distributing  the  dies.  It  also 
mentions  the  Aurifabri  of  London  twice,  as  receiving  fees 
from  the  Exchequer  in  the  first  instance,  and,  in  the 
second,  as  receiving  sixty  shillings  and  ten  pence  for  coal 
or  charcoal,  which  shows  that  they  carried  on  a  consider- 
able public  undertaking,  nor  are  any  other  Aurifabri 
mentioned  throughout  the  Roll.  In  the  forty-ninth  year 
of  Henry  III,  Thomas  Fitz  Otto,  the  then  representative 
of  the  family  and  hereditary  cuneator,  successfully  peti- 
tioned the  King  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer  for  the  return 


28  NUMISMATIC    CHROMCLE. 

of  the  old  and  broken  dies  as  his  perquisite,  alleging  that 
thev  belonged  to  him  of  right  and  inheritance,  and  that 
his  ancestors  had  been  accustomed  to  have  them.  A  writ 
dated  November  17th,  1338,  directed  to  John  de  Flete, 
warden  of  the  King's  mint  in  London,  commanded  him : 

"  to  make  three  dies  of  hard  and  sufficient  metal  at  the  expense 
of  the  Abbot,  one  for  pennies,  another  for  balf-pennies,  and  tbe 
third  for  farthings,  for  the  making  of  money  in  a  certain  place 
in  Reading  with  such  impression  and  circumscription  as  the 
Abbot  should  appoint ;  and  to  send  the  same  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible to  the  King's  Exchequer  at  Westminster,  that  they  miyht 
be  delivered  to  the  said  Abbot  within  fifteen  days  from  the  feast 
of  St.  Martin  next  ensuing,  at  the  furthest." 

There  are  many  other  similar  records,  but  the  above 
seem  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  as  not  only  do  they 
suggest  that  the  working  dies  were  all  issued  from  London, 
but  that  the  "  old  and  broken  "  ones  were  called  in  and 
returned  to  the  Ottos.  The  last-quoted  writ,  too,  removes 
the  only  objection  to  this  theory,  namely,  that  so  many  of 
the  mints  used  curious  mint  marks  or  badges  upon  their 
coins,  such  as  bars,  crosses,  annulets,  trefoils,  &c.,  for 
otherwise  it  would  seem  strange  that  such  eccentricities 
(though  each  had  its  purpose)  should  have  been  issued 
from  the  London  centre.  But  the  expression  "  with  such 
impression  and  circumscription  as  the  Abbot  should 
appoint/'  explains  all  this,  for  the  grantee  of  each  mint 
apparently  issued  his  own  directions  to  the  cuneator  for 
the  reverse  legends,  and  for  such  peculiarities  (if  any)  as 
he  desired  upon  his  dies.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  the 
particular  "  impression  "  ordered  by  the  Abbot  under  this 
writ  was  an  escallop  shell  in  one  quarter  of  the  reverse 
cross,  the  arms  of  Beading  Abbey.  Some  coins  struck 
from  these  particular  dies  still  remain  to  us. 

We  have  now  only  to  deal  with   the  position  of  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       29 

moneyer.  From  Domesday  we  gather  that  some  of  the 
larger  mints  had  six  or  eight  moneyers  coming  at  the 
same  time,  and  they  are  generally  divided  between  the 
King,  the  territorial  lord,  and  the  Bishop  or  Abbot.  They 
probably  all  worked  together  in  the  same  mint,  but  separate 
accounts  were  kept  of  their  output.  Their  position,  too, 
would  vary,  as  they  were  moneyers  of  a  royal  mint  or  of  a 
chartered  one,  for,  in  the  former  case,  they  would  be  minor 
officials  of  the  Crown,  and,  as  such,  freemen,  but  in  the 
latter  they  were  as  Eadmer  described  them,  "  men  in  the 
power  of  their  lord  "  (Vita  S.  Dun.,  c.  27,  p.  202).  But 
whatever  their  position,  their  office  seems  to  have  been 
practically  hereditary,  for  in  reign  after  reign  we  find 
the  same  names  handed  down  in  most  of  the  mints ;  and 
Domesday  (under  Lincoln)  and  the  Pipe  Rolls  show 
us  that,  usually,  son  succeeded  father,  or  nephew  uncle. 
Probably  this  would  arise  from  a  system  of  apprentice- 
ship, which  would  naturally  favour  the  moneyer's 
own  family.  Their  lot,  however,  was  not  a  happy 
one,  for  they  were  subject  to  the  severest  penalties 
of  mutilation  and  fine  that  the  law  could  devise,  and, 
judging  from  the  Rolls,  these  were  not  unfrequently 
inflicted.  Their  names  are  rarely  handed  down  to  us, 
except  on  the  coins  themselves,  unless  they  have  suffered 
such  penalties,  therefore  one  can  only  infer  that  they  were 
very  minor  officials  indeed,  and  the  doctrine  of  "  alter  ab 
illo  micat "  is  very  far  from  applying  to  the  two  names 
upon  the  obverse  and  reverse  of  a  Saxon  or  Norman  coin, 
for  there  could  hardly  be  a  greater  contrast.  It  is  true 
that  Erebald  and  William  his  son,  moneyers  of  Carlisle, 
farmed  the  silver  mines  there,  but  Carlisle  was  a  royal 
mint,  and  it  was  in  consequence  of  the  discovery  of  those 
mines  that  the  mint  was  established,  and  they,  no  doubt, 


yO  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

farmed  it  also  of  the  Crown.  It  seems  moreover  not  to 
have  been  unusual  for  a  moneyer  to  carry  on  another 
business  or  occupation  as  well  as  that  of  coining,  and, 
during  the  intermittent  coinages  of  most  of  the  mints, 
this  must  of  course  have  been  necessary. 

The  purpose  of  the  name  and  address  of  the  moneyer 
upon  the  coin  was,  as  the  Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer  tells 
us,  that  his  responsibility  for  the  weight  and  quality  of 
the  coin  could  be  at  once  established,  and  this  is  additional 
evidence  that  the  sinking  of  the  dies  was  not  left  to  him, 
as,  if  dishonestly  inclined,  his  own  name  would  have  been 
the  last  he  would  have  stamped  upon  a  base  issue.  The 
same  authority,  too,  clearly  indicates  that  the  moneyer 
could  only  strike  the  money  at  the  place  named  upon  the 
reverse.  The  Pipe  Rolls  also  prove  this,  for,  in  every 
case  of  a  conviction  for  false  coining,  and  there  are  many, 
the  moneyer  can  only  be  identified  upon  coins  bearing  the 
name  of  the  same  town  where  he  was  so  convicted,  and 
we  know  that  it  was  always  the  Common  Law  that  the 
venue  lay  where  the  offence  was  committed.  Thus,  if 
London  moneyers,  for  instance,  could  have  followed  the 
King,  and  struck  coins  at  Winchester  from  their  London 
dies,  we  should  have  convictions  recorded  under  Hamp- 
shire against  names  familiar  to  us  upon  the  London  coins, 
and  this  is  never  the  case. 

Much  controversy  has  been  devoted  to  the  word  ON, 
which  almost  invariably  separates  the  moneyer's  name 
from  that  of  the  mint,  on  the  later  Saxon  and  on  Norman 
coins.  It  first  came  into  general  use  in  the  reign  of 
Ethelred  II,  and  as  it  replaced  the  contraction  MON  for 
Monetarius,  there  are  some  grounds  for  believing  that  it 
originally  represented  that  word ;  but  whatever  its  origin, 
it  seems  quite  clear  that  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       31 

centuries  it  stood  for  the  modern  word  OF.  The  proof 
of  this  is,  that  there  are  three  instances  where  the  word 
ON  is  omitted,  and  replaced  by  another  form  or  word, 
always  meaning  OF.  The  first  occurs  on  certain  coins 
of  the  Williams  and  of  Stephen,  on  which  the  Latin 
genitive  case  is  used  in  its  stead,  as,  for  instance,  +SASOTI 
STEFANII,  +WriICfi GLINTS  DERBI.  The  second  upon 
many  coins  of  Stephen,  and  most  of  those  of  the  Empress 
Matilda,  and  of  David,  and  of  William  the  Lion  of  Scot- 
land, upon  which  the  word  ON  is  replaced  by  the  Norman 
DE ;  and  the  third  on  a  unique  coin  of  Stephen  of  the 
ordinary  type,  but  upon  which  the  English  word  OF  itself 
is  clearly  substituted  for  the  usual  word  ON.  But  even 
to  Shakespeare's  time,  this  meaning  of  the  word  ON 
seems  to  have  survived,  thus  : — 

"  A  thriving  gamester  has  but  a  poor  trade  on't." 


CHAPTER  V. 

TREASURE   TROVE    DEDUCTIONS. 

DURING  the  long  reign  of  Henry  I,  which  extended 
from  the  second  of  August,  1100,  to  his  death,  on  the  first 
of  December,  1135,  there  must  have  been  a  vast  quantity 
of  money  coined.  It  was  comparatively  a  reign  of  peace ; 
in  fact,  so  far  as  England  itself  was  concerned,  the  country 
had  probably  never  before  enjoyed  thirty  years  of  such 
uninterrupted  tranquillity  as  it  did  in  the  last  three  decades 
of  Henry's  rule.  The  king  had  succeeded  to  the  immense 
treasures  accumulated  by  the  greed  of  Rufus.  He 
compelled  payment  of  taxes  in  coin  instead  of  kind. 
Silver  mines  were  opened  in  Cumberland.  Guilds  were 


32  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

being  established  in  many  of  tbe  large  towns.  Tbe 
Flemings  were  developing  their  industries  in  the  North 
of  England  and  in  South  Wales.  Most  of  the  castles, 
cathedrals,  and  abbeys  were  still  under  construction,  and, 
in  fact,  everything  tended  towards  the  supply  and  demand 
of  money  and  money's  worth.  Thus,  if  our  coins  were  not 
dependent  in  quantity  on  the  accident  of  discovery,  those 
of  Henry  I  ought  to  be  amongst  the  commonest  in  our 
cabinets  of  any  of  our  early  English  kings. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  days  when  men  for  safety  hid 
their  wealth  in  the  earth,  it  was  when  the  great  waves  of 
turmoil  passed  over  the  land  that  most  treasure  was  lost, 
for  their  owners  were  often  slain,  and  their  secrets  died 
with  them.  Hence,  the  plenitude  of  Edward  the  Con- 
fessor's money  is  in  a  great  measure  accounted  for  by  the 
troubles  of  Harold  II's  nine  months'  reign,  during  which 
it  was  still  in  circulation.  Stephen's  civil  wars  have 
rendered  his  money,  and  Henry's  later  types,  far  more 
numerous  than  the  general  coinage  of  the  latter.  And 
the  same  cause  has  rendered  treasure  trove  of  John, 
Henry  III,  Edward  II,  Edward  IV,  and  Charles  I  a 
plentiful  harvest  of  the  spade. 

The  finds  of  Henry  I's  coins,  therefore,  have  been  few, 
and  unfortunately  the  records  of  them  are  still  fewer. 
The  finds  that  have  been  recorded  will  be  dealt  with  more 
fully  under  the  descriptions  of  their  tj'pes,  but  it  is 
sufficient  here  to  say  that  they  consist  of  eleven,  of  which 
only  five  were  deposited  in  Henry's  reign.  These  eleven 
(with  the  exception  of  one  in  Italy)  are  spread  over 
various  counties  in  the  midland  and  southern  portions  of 
Great  Britain,  namely  :  — 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       33 


Find. 

Approxi- 
mate Date 
of  Deposit. 

Number 
of  Types 
of 
Henry  I. 

Approximate 
Number  of 
Coins  of 
Henry  I. 

Remarks. 

Bermonrlsey, 

1101 

1 

5 

Also   8    coins   of 

Surrey 

William  1  1  . 

Shilling-ton, 

1106 

2  or 

Unrecorded 

250  coins  of  Wil- 

Bedfordshire 

more 

liam     II     and 

Henry    I,    but 

records  incom- 

plete. 

Bari,  Italy 

4114 

2 

27 

Also  many  Con- 

tinental   coins. 

Date  of  deposit 

is,  in  this  case, 

that  of  probable 

export. 

Milford  Haven, 

1129 

1  (?2) 

Perhaps  50 

Only  Henry  I. 

Pembrokeshire 

Battle,  Sussex 

1132 

3 

12? 

Only   12  are  de- 

scribed ;    there 

were    probably 

more. 

Nottingham    . 

Stephen's 

3 

20 

Also     about    1  50 

Reign 

of       Stephen's 

reign. 

Dartford,  Kent 

Do. 

1 

4 

Also     about     61 

of       Stephen's 

reign. 

Watford, 

Do. 

2 

456 

Also  649  of  Ste- 

Hertfordshire 

21  half- 

phen's     reign, 

pennies 

and  an  "  acci- 

dental "    half- 

penny of  Wil- 

liam I  —  II. 

Linton,  near 

Do. 

1 

6 

Also    about    173 

Maidstone, 

1  halfpenny 

of       Stephen's 

Kent 

reign. 

Wallsop, 
Wiltshire 

Do. 

Several 

Unrecorded 

.Also  many  of  Ste- 
phen's reign. 

Ashby-Wolds, 

Henry  II's 

1 

Do. 

About      450      of 

Leicestershire 

Reign 

Henry  I,   Ste- 

phen  ,      and 

Henrv  II. 

From  the  meagre  details  given  us  of  the  Shillington, 
Wallsop,  and  Ashby-Wolds  finds,  it  is  impossible  to  deduce 
what  proportion  the  above  hoards  contributed  to  the  whole 
of  the  coins  of  Henry's  reign  now  known,  but  it  must  not 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  F 


34  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

be  forgotten  that  Mr.  Rashleigh  tells  us,  in  his  admirable 
account  of  the  Watford  discovery  (N.  C.  12,  p.  143),  that 
three-fifths  of  the  whole  of  that  find  were  condemned  to 
the  crucible.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  estimate  the  number  of 
Henry's  coins  known  in  this  country.  The  subjoined  list 
will  contain  descriptions  of  exactly  1,000  specimens ;  but 
though  duplicate  references  will  be  avoided  so  far  as 
possible,  they  must  in  a  measure  exist,  for,  unless  the 
connecting  link  is  clear,  it  is  safer  to  insert  two  similar 
readings  than  to  take  it  for  granted  that  they  represent 
the  same  coin.  The  list,  however,  is  not  proffered  as 
complete,  but  the  total  number  to-day  of  our  coins  of 
Henry  I  probably  exceeds  800,  and  falls  short  of  1,000. 

As  the  records  of  the  above  finds  do  not  include  more 
than  half  of  Henry's  types,  we  shall  be  safe  in  assuming 
that  there  must  have  been  at  least  twenty  such  discoveries 
altogether,  and  when  we  remember  that  not  one  of  the 
recorded  finds,  although  the  dates  of  their  discoveries 
extend  over  a  hundred  years,  has  added  a  single  fresh  type 
to  those  already  known  to  Hunter,  Tyssen,  Snelling,  and 
Withy  in  the  last  century,  we  may  conclude  that  we  have 
now  a  complete  series  of  the  types  of  Henry's  reign. 
Moreover,  to  carry  the  argument  a  step  further,  as,  since 
that  of  Watford  in  1818,  no  recorded  find  has  added  a 
new  town  to  our  list  of  this  king's  mints  (although  one  or 
two,  possibly  found  long  before  Watford,  but  unnoticed, 
will  be  presently  given),  we  may  also  infer  that,  taking 
Henry's  coinage  as  a  whole,  our  cabinets  very  nearly 
contain  a  general  representation  of  it  in  its  entirety. 

It  does  not,  however,  follow  that,  because  a  certain  type 
is  much  commoner  to-day  than  the  others,  it  was  originally 
more  plentifully  coined,  the  quantity  in  our  possession 
depending  merely  upon  the  accident  of  discovery.  For 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       35 

instance,  most  of  the  finds  of  Henry's  coins  happen  to  have 
been  deposited  in  Stephen's  reign,  and  therefore  his  two 
last  types  are  represented  in  greater  quantity  than  all  the 
others  put  together.  But  the  duration  of  a  type  in 
circulation  may  be  approximated  in  this  way.  If  a  type 
had  been  long  in  circulation  when  its  specimens  were 
deposited,  coins  from  many  mints  would  be  mixed  together, 
and  so,  if  taken  in  batches  of  say  fifty  (the  number  of 
possible  mints),  the  proportion  of  towns  to  the  number  of 
coins  would  be  larger,  but  if  it  had  been  only  recently 
issued,  then  only  the  mints  in  the  immediate  neighbour- 
hood of  collection  would  be  represented,  no  matter  how 
many  coins  were  deposited  ;  and  so,  if  we  take  the  whole 
of  our  coins  as  representing  one  general  find  of  the  reign 
deposited  at  various  times,  we  can  form  some  idea  of  the 
original  circulation  of  the  various  coinages  between  the 
limits  of  legal  tender. 

Hitherto  numismatists  have  assumed  that  because  one 
type  bore  a  close  or  general  similarity  to  another,  the  two 
were  issued  successively,  but  this  was  exactly  the  object 
which  the  Norman  authorities  at  certain  intervals  had 
most  carefully  to  avoid.  When  few  but  the  clergy  could 
either  read  or  write,  how  were  the  people  to  draw  the  line 
of  demarcation  between  what  was  current  coin  and  what 
was  obsolete,  save  by  such  a  difference  in  the  device  as 
could  be  clearly  described  by  public  proclamation  ? 
The  most  obvious  difference  would  be  obtained  by  altering 
the  position  of  the  king's  head  into  profile.  Bearing  in 
mind,  therefore,  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  the 
people  should  be  able  to  understand  at  a  glance  what  coins 
were  from  time  to  time  called  in,  and  what  were  still  a 
legal  tender,  the  following  simple  theory  or  rule  at  once 
suggests  itself  as  meeting  the  case — viz  :  "  The  issue  of  a 


36 


NUMISMATIC   CHROMCLE. 


profile  type  limited  the  legal  tender  or  '  present  money  ' 
— '  solos  usuales  et  instantis  monetae  legitimos  denarios '  — 
as  the  '  Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer  '  terms  it,  to  those  types 
only  which  had  been  issued  since  the  previous  profile  type." 
Now  to  prove  the  theory.  It  follows  as  a  matter  of  course 
that,  if  the  theory  be  correct,  no  two  profile  types  ought 
to  appear  in  any  one  find,  for  the  issue  of  the  later  profile 
type  invalidates  the  currency  of  the  earlier,  but  it  is 
immaterial  how  many  front-faced  types  appear,  for  they 
represent  the  intermediate  and  sanctioned  currency.  We 
will  therefore  glance  at  the  whole  of  the  Norman  finds, 
which  have  been  sufficiently  recorded  for  this  purpose. 
It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  as  the  tax  of 
monctagium  was  only  introduced  after  the  Conquest,  no 
such  regulation  may  have  existed  in  Saxon  times. 


Find. 

Number  of  Coins. 

Types. 

Dimchurch   . 

100?  Norman 

1  profile  only. 

York   .     .     . 

200?  Norman 

1  profile,  1  front  face. 

London  City 

5  Norman 

2  front  face  only. 

Beaworth 

10,000  (about) 

1  profile,  3  front  face. 

Tamworth     . 

300 

1  profile,  3  front  face. 

Bermondsey 

13 

3  front  face  only. 

Shillington    . 

250 

1  profile,  3  front  face  (?) 

Bari    .     .     . 

27 

2  front  face  only. 

Milford  Haven 

50? 

1  profile,  (?)  1  front  face. 

Battle      .     . 

12? 

1  profile,  2  front  face. 

Nottingham  . 

170  (about) 

1  profile,  3  front  face. 

Dartford  . 

65 

1  profile,  1  front  face. 

Watford  .     . 

1,150 

1  profile,  2  front  face. 

Linton      .     . 

180 

1  profile,  2  front  face. 

In  the  Beaworth  and  Dartford  cases,  it  is  true  that 
there  are  two  profile  types,  but  they  are  only  varieties  of 
reverse,  or  what  are  called  "  mules,"  as  in  both  instances 
the  obverse  types  are  identical. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       37 

Thus  the  coincidence  is  far  too  remarkable  to  admit  of 
any  other  explanation  than  some  such  purpose  as  the  one 
suggested,  for  we  have  more  than  twelve  thousand  coins 
discovered  in  fourteen  different  finds,  and  in  no  case  is 
there  more  than  a  single  profile  type !  If  the  reader 
will  refer  to  Hawkins'  Silver  Coins  of  England,  he  will 
find  that  there  are  about  thirty-five  distinct  regal  types 
in  the  Norman  series,  and  the  proportion  of  profile  to 
front- faced  obverses  (after  discarding  varieties  of  reverse 
only)  is  as  10  to  25,  or  one  to  two  and  a-half  ;  and  this  is 
precisely  the  average  of  the  same  proportion  in  the  above 
list  of  finds.  It  may  also  be  remarked  that,  with  the 
abolition  of  frequent  changes  in  the  legal  tender,  on 
Henry  II's  accession,  the  profile  types  being  therefore 
no  longer  required  entirely  disappeared  from  our  English 
coinage  until  three  centuries  later,  when  Henry  YII 
remodelled  the  general  currency  by  the  introduction  of 
the  shilling,  and  struck  it  in  profile. 

When  the  types  of  Henry's  reign  are  described  it  will 
be  noticed  that,  in  one  instance,  two  profile  types  come 
together,  or  rather,  one  succeeds  the  other ;  but  it  was  on 
the  occasion  of  the  great  Inquisition  of  the  Moneyers  in 
1125  when,  in  consequence  of  the  general  debasement  of 
the  money,  a  new  coinage  was  suddenly  ordered.  There- 
fore, as  this  occurred  during  the  issue  of  a  profile  type,  the 
second  type  also  bore  the  King's  head  in  profile,  and 
thus  again  invalidated  all  money  issued  up  to  its  own 
date,  and  constituted  itself  the  commencement  of  an 
entirely  new  currency,  for,  to  quote  the  words  of  Wen- 
dover,  "  at  that  time  there  was  a  new  coinage  in  England." 
Is  not  this  the  explanation  of  the  modern  custom  of  every 
sovereign's  head  being  reversed  in  position  to  that  of  his 
predecessor's  ?  Charles  II  originated  it  to  show  his 


38  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

contempt  for  Cromwell — so  it  is  said,  and  perhaps  some 
tradition  of  the  power  of  "estoppel"  of  a  distinctive 
profile  type  still  lingered  in  men's  minds  in  those  days. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  descriptions  of  the  coins 
themselves  a  grateful  acknowledgment  is  due  to  those  who 
have  so  kindly  supplied  particulars  of  the  specimens  in 
their  possession.  Their  names  will  appear  in  every  case, 
and  from  their  information  a  much  more  complete  list  of 
Henry  I's  coins  has  been  furnished  than  otherwise  would 
have  been  possible.  The  authorities  of  the  public  museums 
in  London,  Glasgow, Oxford,  Cambridge,  Nottingham,  and 
Worcester,  for  instance,  have  contributed  particulars  and 
casts  of  several  hundred  specimens,  and  Mr.  L.  A. 
Lawrence,  whose  great  interest  in  this  subject  is  so  well 
known,  has  rendered  generous  assistance  in  every  branch 
of  this  work. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   TYPES. 

The  Evolution  of  Design. 

WE  have  seen  that  there  were  three  hereditary  designers 
of  the  coinage  during  this  long  reign,  and  it  is  only  to 
be  expected  that  there  would  be  a  considerable  improve- 
ment or  modernization  between  the  work  of  the  first 
and  of  the  last,  and  that  each  would  show  some  peculiari- 
ties. 

Otto  auri/aber  is  mentioned  more  than  once  in  Domes- 
day, and  had  held  office  since  the  days  of  the  Conqueror. 
His  work  is  easy  to  distinguish,  for  he  carries  forward 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       39 

the  identical  form   of  letters    used    upon  William  IT's 
coins,  viz.  : 

Two  uprights  unjoined  and  often  without  the  cross- 
bar, thus,  1 1  for  A,  and  the  same  uprights  for  V. 

The  square  or  Roman  H,  E,  and  C  (though  usually 
6)  for  H,C  and  G.  H  often  representing  N,M  or  H, 
and  being  sometimes  reversed  as  "H. 

The  Saxon  D  for  T  H  and  P  for  W. 

I  E  for  M  and  letters  often  joined  together  in  mono- 
gram as  IE,  N),  &c. 

He  uses  either  HENEIEVS  (often  blundered)  or 
HENEI  and  sometimes  EEX  ANG  for  the  King's 
name  and  title,  but  never  HENEIE. 

His  favourite  ornament  is  the  annulet. 

He  died  in  1101,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  (see 

P-  47). 
Otho  Fitz  Otto  introduces  several  changes. 

H  is  soon  entirely  discarded  for  I\,  and  D  presently 
becomes  in  nearly  all  cases  simply  T. 

C  is  finally  replaced  by  6. 

A,N,M,  2E  assume  their  modern  forms,  and  sometimes 
C  and  G  appear  on  his  later  types. 

He  uses  HENEI  at  first,  but  soon  changes  to  IiENEI, 
IiENEIE  and  fiENEIEVS  for  the  King's  name. 
Under  him  two  pellets  in  the  form  of  a  colon  are 
gradually  introduced  to  separate  the  different 
words — a  custom  still  in  evidence  upon  our  coinage 
of  to-day. 

His  designs  are  profuse  with  ornaments,  until  in  his 
later  types  he  seems  to  aim  at  filling  up  every 
particle  of  field  with  small  annulets,  stars,  quatre- 
foils,  &c. 

He  probably  died  about  1120. 


40  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

His  son,  William  Fitz  Otho,  appears  to  have  been  too 
young  to  immediately  succeed  him,  and  between  1120  and 
1125  we  note  the  hand  of  a  very  inferior  designer,  who, 
whilst  retaining  his  predecessor's  letters  (with  the  addition 
of  JR),  ornaments,  and  colons  of  division,  produces  work  of 
so  rude  and  uncertain  a  character  that  two  dies  are  rarely 
alike  (see  p.  74). 

He  also  reverts  to  the  old  custom  of  using  REX  ANG 

for  the  title. 
He   was   probably    removed    at   the   Inquisition   of 

Christmas,  1125. 

In  1126  there  is  a  great  improvement  in  the  dies. 
William  Fitz  Otho  is  now  serving  his  apprenticeship 
under  someone  who,  judging  from  his  work,  must  have 
been  the  best  numismatic  artist  England  had  until  the 
time  of  Henry  VII  (see  p.  87). 

The  modern  W  is  introduced  on  some  of  his  coins. 
Also  "  Th,"  although  the  Saxon  D  is  still  occasionally 

retained. 

He  attempts  a  portrait. 
He   invariably  uses    riENEIEVS   and  the  colons  of 

division. 
With    the    exception   of  a  star   he   dispenses   with 

ornaments. 

In  1130  the  "Pipe  Boll "  tells  us  that  William  Fitz 
Otho  paid  certain  fees  that  he  might  no  longer  have 
a  master  over  him.  He,  therefore,  has  now  completed 
his  apprenticeship  and  succeeds  to  his  hereditary  office 
(see  p.  87). 

He  discards   the   Saxon  D  entirely,   and   with   the 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.      41 

exception  of  upon  one  or  two  "  irregular  "  coins  of 
Stephen  it  never  again  appears  upon  our  coinage. 

He  invariably  uses  the  colons  of  division. 

Often  the  modern  W  and  sometimes  the  round  C  appear. 

He  dispenses  with  all  ornaments. 

He  uses  riENRI,  RENRIE,  IiENRIEV  or  fiENKIEVS. 

REFERENCES. 

As  every  English  numismatist  is,  or  ought  to  be,  con- 
versant with  Mr.  Kenyon's  edition  of  "Hawkins'  Silrcr 
Coins  of  England,  1887,"  all  references  to  the  types  will  in 
future  be  given  to  the  numbers  of  his  illustrations,  and 
where  one  is  not  there  represented,  by  reference  to  the 
number  of  the  type  in  his  letterpress.  In  the  latter  case, 
as  a  distinction,  such  number  will  be  given  in  Roman 
numerals.  Although  Mr.  Hawkins  assigns  twenty  types 
to  this  reign,  there  are  in  effect  but  fifteen  which,  for 
reasons  dealt  with  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  can  rightly 
be  appropriated  to  it,  and,  although  it  is  usually  thought 
otherwise,  a  reference  to  his  letterpress  under  Type  XI. 
will  prove  that  he  does  not  attempt  to  describe  them  in 
their  order  of  issue. 

For  convenience  of  reference,  the  "  mule  "  varieties,  i.e. 
coins  struck  from  the  obverse  die  of  one  type  and  the 
reverse  die  of  another,  will  be  described  under  the  obverse 
type  ;  but  it  is  obvious  that  if  the  reverse  die  is  the  later 
one,  the  coin  must  have  been  issued  after  its  introduction. 

As  the  first  half  of  this  treatise  goes  to  press  before  the 
material  for  the  second  portion  is  completed,  the  list  of 
mints  and  number  of  specimens  given  under  each  Type 
may  subsequently  be  subject  to  some  correction. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  G 


42 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


TYPE  I. 
1100—1102. 


Fig.  A. 
HAWKINS,  251. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  i.,  15  ;  Sup.  ii.,2;  Snell- 
ing,  i.,  13;  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  1-5;  Num.  Chron.,  1881, 
iii.,  1,  and  1893,  xii.,  251 ;  Montagu  Catalogue,  ii.,  271,  v.,  95. 

Olv. — Legend. 

*  HENRI  REX  AN 

R  ANC 
REX  NL 

REX  NL 

*  HENRI  REX  N 
•I.HNRI  REX  KG 

•frHNRI  REX  NI 
•frHNRI  REX 
[*H]EHH  REX 
^  HENRI  RIEX 

*  HENRI  REX 

Crowned  bust,  facing,  an  annulet  on  either  side  of  the 
head,  within  an  inner  circle  springing  from  the 
shoulders. 

Rev. — Cross  fleury,  annulet  in  centre  ;  in  each  angle,  three 
pellets  in  form  of  a  trefoil  inwards,  with  two  stalks 
curving  outwards  to  the  inner  circle.  All  within 
an  inner  circle.  [PI.  II.,  Nos.  1—5.] 

Mints— 20. 


REX  I 

•I.HENRIEVS  RE 
^.HNRIEYS  REX 
4.HNRILVS  RE 
^.HNRIEVS  REI 
^.HNRIEVS  RI 

•frlHRIESNIS  REX 
^.HNRIIEE 
^.HNREEX  NI 
•J.HNR  REEX  NI 


Canterbury 
Chester  or 

Lewes 
Dover 
Hastings 
Ipswich 
Lewes 
Lincoln 


London 

Norwich 

Oxford 

Rochester 

Salisbury 

Southwark 

Stamford 


Taunton  (?) 
Thetford 
Wallingford 
Wareham  or 
Warwick 
Winchester 
York 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       43 

Hawkins  gives  Dorchester,  Leicester,  Newark,  and 
St.  Edmundsbury ;  but  the  first  is  a  Dover  coin,  the 
second  a  Chester  or  Lewes,  the  third  a  London,  and  the 
fourth  a  Lewes  coin. 

Henry  is  in  England  during  the  whole  period  of  1100 
and  1102.  Unless  otherwise  stated  the  types  are  assumed 
to  commence  and  close  with  the  Exchequer  year,  i.e.,  at 
Michaelmas. 

Number   of  specimens  noted. — 70,  or   allowing  for 
probable  duplicate  references,  say  55.   Varieties,  3. 
Finds  containing  this  type. — Bermondsey  and  Not- 
tingham (a  single,  probably  accidental,  example). 
Weight   and   quality. — 20   to   22^  grains  of   good 

silver. 

Form   of  letters.— II  =  A.    E  =  C.     C  and  6  =  G. 
H  =  H.  H,  M  and  N  =  M.    H,  N  and  K  =  N.    P  = 
W.     II  =  V.    D=TH.    IE=^],  and    letters    are 
often  joined  together  as  1<E,  Kj,  N). 
That   this   is   the   first  type  of   the   reign   cannot   be 
doubted,  for  it  bears  too  close  a  resemblance  in  lettering 
and  design  to  the  coins  of  Ruf  us  to  be  separated  from  them. 
Also,  it  was  the  only  type  of  Henry  I  which  appeared  in 
the    Bermondsey   find   (Num.    Cliron.  viii.   170),   which 
contained  five  specimens  of  it,  the  remaining  coins  being 
of  three  types  of  William  II.    This  hoard,  therefore,  must 
have  been  deposited  very  early  in  the  reign,  and  before 
any  other  type  was  current.     But  there  are  other  reasons 
for   the  position  of  this  type  as  the  first.     The  Saxon 
letters  H,  J7  and  D  are  still  invariably  retained,  and  it  is 
the  only  type  of  the  reign  issued  before  it  became  cus- 
tomary to  join  the  two  uprights  1 1  representing  A  or  V  at 
the  head  or  foot,  and  on  which  the  square  G  appears.  Also 
it  is  one  of  only  two  types   issued   prior   to  the  intro- 


44  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

duction  of  the  form  "  f\,"  which  was  shortly  to  become  so 
universal  in  place  of  the  old  H. 

The  spelling,  too,  of  the  King's  name  tells  its  own  tale. 
England  had  never  seen  the  name  "  Henry "  upon  her 
coins  either  as  King  or  even  moneyer,  and  naturally  at 
first  Otto  and  his  die-sinkers  blundered  over  its  Latin 
form.  In  evidence  of  this  are  the  many  variations  and 
errors  by  which  it  is  represented  in  the  above  list,  and 
yet  nothing  of  the  sort  appears  on  any  other  type. 
Exactly  the  same  difficulty  occurred  with  King  Stephen's 
name  when  it  was  introduced,  for  his  first  type  discloses 
every  variation  in  spelling,  but  his  subsequent  types  none. 
Perhaps  the  spelling  of  the  Conqueror's  name  will  similarly 
disclose  his  earliest  coinage. 

The  design  of  the  great  seal  is  necessarily  one  of  the 
first  undertakings  upon  a  King's  accession.  Henry's 
bore  the  legend  HENEICVS  DEI  GEATIA  EEX 
ANGLOEVM.  (See  Plate  I).  It  was  probably  Otto's 
work  also  and,  subject  to  the  then  usual  omission  of 
DEI  GEATIA,  we  notice  a  very  close  imitation  of  its 
inscription  upon  the  coins  of  this  type,  and  yet  (with  the 
exceptions  of  one  or  two  varieties  of  the  next  two  types) 
for  many  years  afterwards  no  attempt  is  made  at  any  form 
of  the  title  ANGLORVM,  nor  does  the  name  Henricus  in 
full  again  appear  upon  any  type  for  nearly  a  dozen  years. 

This  type  also  bears  a  much  larger  proportion  of  the 
names  of  those  moneyers  who  struck  the  Conqueror's  coins 
in  the  Beaworth  hoard,  deposited  more  than  a  dozen  years 
before,  than  any  other  type  of  Henry's  reign.  Also  upon  it 
are  found  all  the  older  forms  of  the  moneyers'  and  mints' 
names,  and  altogether  its  coins  are  clearly  earlier  in  every 
respect  than  those  of  any  of  the  other  types. 

The  coins  are  of  good  silver,  and  some  even  attain  the 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       45 

full  weight,  viz.  22|  grains,  but  no  doubt  Henry's  enact- 
ment in  his  Coronation  Charter,  that  "  if  anyone  shall  be 
taken,  either  money er  or  other,  with  false  money,  let  justice 
be  done  upon  him  according  to  the  law,"  was  still  fresh 
in  men's  minds. 

As  Henry  was  in  England  during  the  whole  period  of 
the  issue  of  this  type,  1100 — 1102,  most  of  his  barons 
would  be  here  also — especially  at  his  Coronation,  which 
we  know  many  of  them  came  over  specially  from  Nor- 
mandy to  attend.  Thus  the  large  number  of  twenty  mints 
represented  upon  the  coins  of  this  type  is  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  the  grantees  of  the  chartered  mints  were  in 
England,  and  therefore  enabled  to  exercise  their  privileges 
at  this  time. 

Varieties — (A)  In  his  account  of  the  Bermondsey  find,  Mr. 
Hawkins  mentions  a  coin  "very  similar 
to  type  251,  but  without  the  annulets 
over  the  shoulders." 

(B)  A  London  coin  in  the  British  Museum  has 

what  appears  to  be  an  eight-shaped  orna- 
ment in  place  of  one  of  the  annulets  on 
the  obverse,  but  it  is  probably  an  accident 
of  striking. 

(C)  There  is  a  "  mule  "  coin  described  under  the 

next  type  254  with  obverse  of  that  and 
reverse  of  this  type. 

TYPE  II. 
1102—1104. 


Fig.  B. 
HAWKINS,  254. 


46  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  3,  and  part  ii., 
i,  4  ;  Num.  Chron.,  1893,  xii.,  254. 

Obv.— Legend.     *  HENRI  EEX         *  HENRI  RI 

*  HENRI  RE  *  HENRI  REI 

*  HENRI  R  *  HENRI  RIEX 

Crowned  bust  in  profile  to  left,  before  a  sceptre ;  no 
inner  circle.  Sometimes  a  tiny  annulet  upon  the 
right  shoulder. 

Rev. — Cross  fleury  or  composed  of  four  trefoils,  annulet  or 
sometimes  a  pellet  in  the  centre ;  within  an  inner 
circle.  [PL  II.,  Nos.  6-9.] 

Mints— 18. 

Bristol  Lincoln  Southwark 

Canterbury  London  Stamford 

Exeter  Norwich  Thetford 

Hastings  Salisbury  York 
Leicester 


Henry   is   in  England   for   about   eighteen   months 

between  1102  and  1104. 
Number  of  specimens  noted. — 32,  or,    allowing  for 

possible  duplicate  references,  say  28.  Varieties. — 1. 
Finds. — None  recorded  of  this  type. 
Weight  and  quality. — 18  to  19  grains,  debased  metal. 
Form  of  letters. — Precisely  similar  to  the  previous 

type,  save  that  the  A  and  V  are  rarely  disjointed. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  a  marked  difference 
between  the  style  of  this  type  and  that  of  its  predecessor. 
It  is  much  smaller  in  diameter,  and  no  longer  bears  the 
characteristic  features  of  the  coins  of  Rufus.  The  inner 
circle  which  had  invariably  appeared  upon  the  obverse 
and  reverse  of  our  money  for  a  quarter  of  a  century — in 
fact  during  the  whole  term  of  office  of  Otto  unrifaber — is 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.       47 

now  for  a  time  discontinued  upon  the  obverse,  and  there 
is  a  temporary  retrogression  in  the  general  art  displayed, 
only  to  be  explained  by  the  introduction  of  the  hand  of  a 
new  designer.  In  the  British  Museum  there  is  an  ancient 
MS.  copy  of  a  Charter  by  Henry  I  appointing  Otho  Fitz 
Otto  to  the  office  of  aurifaber  in  succession  to  his  father,  but 
it  is  undated  (Chartae  Antiques  Lond.  Y.  17).  As,  however, 
it  is  addressed  to  Maurice,  Bishop  of  London,  and  Hugh 
de  Bocland,  witnessed  by  Robert,  Earl  of  Mellent,  William 
de  Warren  and  William  de  Albini,  and  granted  at 
Arundel,  its  date  must  be  Midsummer,  1101,  and  this  type 
is  therefore  the  first  designed  by  the  new  aurifaber.  The 
date  of  the  Charter  is  deduced  as  follows : — Maurice, 
Bishop  of  London,  died  in  1107  ;  Robert  de  Mellent  and 
William  de  Warren  were,  prior  to  1107,  only  in  England 
at  the  same  time  from  August,  1100,  to  September,  1101 
(see  Lewes  and  Leicester) ;  and  Henry,  Robert  de  Mellent, 
and  William  de  Warren  were  together  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Arundel  at  Midsummer,  1101 ;  immediately  after 
which  de  Warren  deserted  Henry's  cause,  and  was  sub- 
sequently banished. 

As  this  is  the  only  other  type  upon  which  the  old  form 
"  H  "  instead  of  "  I\  "  invariably  appears,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  is  the  second  of  the  reign.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  curious  spellings  El,  EEI  and  EIEX 
all  appear  on  this  type  as  on  the  previous  one,  and  yet 
they  never  occur  again.  The  lettering,  too,  is  almost 
identical,  and  the  annulet  ornament  is  retained  upon  the 
reverse.  The  fact  that  all  these  coins  read  HENEI 
suggests  that  that  form  was  the  latest  in  use  on  the  dies 
of  the  previous  type,  if,  indeed,  it  was  not  introduced  in 
1101  by  Otho  Fitz  Otto  upon  his  appointment.  Finally 
the  "  mule  "  of  obverse  of  this  type  and  reverse  of  the  last 


48  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

(presently  described  under  "  varieties  ")  connects  the  two, 
and  should  conclusively  prove  the  succession.  The  coins, 
though  much  smaller  in  diameter  than  usual,  are  thicker. 
The  silver  of  most  is  obviously  debased,  and  the  average 
weight  only  nineteen  grains.  This  is  the  commencement 
of  the  first  debasement  of  the  coinage,  which  culminated 
in  the  drastic  proclamation  of  1108  previously  referred  to. 
Perhaps  one  of  the  causes  of  this  was  the  impoverished 
condition  of  the  country  owing  to  the  payment  of  3,000 
marks — 480,000  pennies  !  (or  3,000  pounds  according  to 
Ordericus) — to  Robert  of  Normandy  in  1 102  and  1103  under 
the  1101  treaty,  for  Wendover  records  that  it  was  paid 
for  two  years.  This  debasement  was  soon  discovered,  for 
Brompton,  Knyghton  and  Hemingford  state  that  Henry, 
at  the  Christmas  Court  of  1103,  found  it  necessary  to 
increase  the  punishment  of  the  moneyer  for  debasing  the 
coinage  by  adding  that  of  loss  of  sight  and  mutilation  ; 
in  other  words,  he  made  it  treason  to  tamper  with  the 
King's  money.  The  penalty,  under  Athelstan's  law, 
having  hitherto  been 

"  let  the  hand  be  struck  off  with  which  he  wrought  that  offence 
and  be  set  up  on  the  money  smithy  "  (Kenyon). 

Variety— (A)  The  Whitbourn  Catalogue  contained  a  coin 
described  as  "  Penny,  bust  to  left,  with 
sceptre;  reverse  Hawkins,  251,  of  the 
London  mint,  unique."  This  is  a  "mule" 
of  obverse  of  this  and  reverse  of  the 
previous  type. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       49 

TYPE  III. 
1104—1106. 


Fig.  C. 
HAWKINS,  253. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  7  ;  Snelling,  i., 
15;  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  11  and  13;  Warne's  History  of 
Dorset,  i.,  15  ;  Num.  Chron.,  1893,  xii.,  253. 

Obv. — Legend. 

(A)  .{.HENRI  REX  EN       *  HENRI  REX 
*  HENRI  RE  *  HENRI  RXI 
^HIENRI  R 

(B)  4-rxENRI  REX  Ti         *I\ENRI  REX  E 
.frriENRI  RE 

Crowned  bust  facing,   sometimes    an  annulet  on  the 
shoulder  ;  no  sceptre  or  inner  circle. 

Rev. — PAX  across  the  field  and  between  two  lines ;  above 
and  below,  two  annulets ;  all  within  an  inner  circle. 
On  many  the  lines  are  duplicated.  [PL  II.,  Nos. 
10—14.] 


Mints—  16. 

Bristol 

Norwich 

Wareham  or 

Canterbury 

Salisbury 

Warwick 

Colchester 

Stamford 

Wilton 

Hastings 

Sudbury 

Winchester 

Ipswich 

Thetford 

York 

London 

Taunton  or  Tamworth  ? 

The  "  BISES"  coin  queried  by  Hawkins  is  assigned 
to  Bristol.  The  specimen  of  this  type  given  by 
him  to  Lincoln  is  removed  to  London. 

VOL.  I.  FOURTH  SERIES.  H 


50  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  twelve  months  between 
1104  and  1106. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 36,  or  allowing  for 
possible  duplicate  references,  say  30. 

Finds. — None  recorded. 

Weight  and  quality. — 19  to  20  grains,  usually  of  fine 
silver. 

Form  of  letters. — On  many  of  the  coins  the  later  "  I\ " 
is  now  first  introduced.  A,  M,  N,  and  T  usually 
assume  these  forms,  though  the  diphthong  JE  is 
still  represented  by  I  E,  and  the  other  letters  re- 
main unaltered. 

As  about  half  these  coins  commence  the  King's  name 
with  the  old  H,  and  the  remainder  with  the  later  or 
Lombardic  h,  the  change  probably  occurred  in  the 
middle  of  the  issue,  viz.,  in  1105. 

Under  the  two  previous  types  some  ninety  coins  have 
been  referred  to,  every  one  of  which  bears  the  old  form. 
H.  After  this  type  many  hundreds  will  be  described, 
and  yet  not  one  of  them  has  on  the  obverse  any  other  form 
than  the  Lombardic  "  h."  (The  H  in  the  engraving, 
Ruding,  Supp.  ii.,  11,  13,  type  258,  when  compared  with 
the  coin  proving  to  be  an  error  for  h.)  Nothing  could 
be  more  drastic  than  the  abolition  of  the  old  H,  and 
nothing  can  therefore  be  more  convincing  that  this  must 
be  the  third  type  of  the  reign. 

There  is  another  innovation  almost  as  important. 
Hitherto  on  Saxon  and  Norman  coins  there  has  not  been 
any  attempt  at  a  separation  of  the  words  forming  the 
legends,  but  now  on  one  or  two  of  these  coins,  probably 
the  latest  issued,  two  pellets  in  the  form  of  a  colon  are 
used  after  the  moneyer's  name,  but  in  no  case  do  they 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       51 

appear  between  each  word,  as  was  so  soon  to  become  cus- 
tomary. Oddly  enough,  in  each  case  they  appear  to 
follow  a  contraction,  as  they  do  on  coins  of  to-day. 

Having  now  ascertained  the  approximate  date  (1104-6) 
of  this  type,  we  are  one  step  nearer  the  solution  of  the 
oft-debated  problem  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  PAX  on 
this,  and  in  one  form  or  another  upon  certain  types  of 
every  preceding  reign  to  that  of  Canute  ;  but  this  is  its 
last  appearance.  When  the  coinage  of  the  two  Williams 
comes  to  be  treated  similarly  to  that  of  this  reign,  and 
the  date  of  the  well-known  PAXS  types  ascertained, 
the  explanation,  if  any,  should  at  once  be  apparent,  but 
pending  that  only  surmise  can  still  be  offered.  The 
simpler  the  foundation  the  stronger  the  hypothesis,  and 
so  PAX  must  be  assumed  to  mean  PEACE,  or  a  Treaty 
of  Peace.  It  has  therefore  often  been  suggested  that, 
in  this  instance,  it  refers  to  Henry's  treaty  with  Robert 
of  Normandy  late  in  the  summer  of  1101.  That  date  would 
tally  very  well  with  the  issue  of  the  second  type  (254)  in 
1102,  but  not  with  this,  which  was  not  issued  until  1104. 
Moreover,  that  treaty  was  a  humiliating  one  to  Henry, 
for  under  it  he  had  to  pay  tribute  to  Normandy,  and  it 
is  more  than  doubtful  whether  he  ever  intended  to  keep 
it.  But  we  are  told  that,  after  the  suppression  of  Robert 
de  Beleme's  rebellion  : — 

"  In  1103,  Robert  Duke  of  Normandy  came  over  to  England, 
and,  by  the  King's  craftiness,  was  induced  for  various  reasons 
to  release  him  from  his  obligations  to  pay  the  tribute  of  3,000 
marks." — (Huntingdon,  cf.  Saxon  Chronicle,  &c.) 

This  confirms  the  original  treaty,  but  removes  from  it 
all  that  was  objectionable  from  Henry's  point  of  view, 
for  it  recognises  his  independent  title  to  the  throne. 
Prior  to  this,  his  right  had  only  been  that  of  possession 


52 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


and  election,  a  right  actually  weakened  by  the  treaty  of 
1101,  for  by  it  he  obviously  acknowledged  Robert's  prior 
claims.  But  now,  by  whatever  means  the  new  treaty  was 
obtained,  and  it  savoured  of  personal  intimidation,  he 
is  acknowledged  an  independent  sovereign,  freed  from 
tribute  or  homage  to  Robert.  Thus,  though  short-lived 
as  both  treaties  afterwards  proved  to  be,  Henry  would 
attach  the  utmost  importance  to  them  at  the  time,  and 
when  a  few  months  afterwards,  in  1104,  a  new  type  was 
issued,  they  would  be  still  foremost  in  his  mind.  Not  only 
did  he  thus  commemorate  the  treaties  upon  his  coins,  but 
he  similarly  dated  his  charters  by  them,  as,  for  instance, 
his  charter  to  Eudo  Dapifer,  "  in  primo  Natali  post  con- 
cordiam  Roberti  Comitis  fratris  mei  de  me  et  de  illo  "  (see 
Colchester,  p.  160). 
Varieties. — None. 

TYPE  IV. 
1106—1108. 


HAWKINS,  252. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  9  ;  Snelling,  i., 
14;  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1800,  p.  817;  Num.  Chron.,  1893, 
zii.,  252. 

Obv.— Legend.      ifrfiENRI  BEX  ^.riENEI  EE 

Crowned  bust  facing,  usually  an  annulet  on  the  left 
shoulder,  and  one  on  each  of  the  three  points  of  the 
crown.  No  inner  circle. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       53 


Eev. — Treasure  composed  of  four  convex  curves  and  four 
pyramids  outwards  surmounted  by  annulets,  alter- 
nate. In  the  centre,  an  annulet  usually  encircling 
a  pellet.  All  within  an  inner  circle.  [PL  III., 
Nos.  1—3.] 


Mints — 14. 

Exeter 

Hastings 

Ipswich 

Leicester 

Lincoln 


London  Stamford  (?) 

Norwich  Thetford 

St.  Edmundsbury  Winchester 

Southampton  York 
Southwark 


The  coins  reading  "  SAN "  are  attributed  to  St.  Ed- 
mundsbury. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  fifteen  months  between 
1106  and  1108. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 52,  or  allowing  for 
probable  duplicate  references,  say  45.  Varieties. 
— None. 

Finds. — Shillington. 

Weight  and  quality. — 20  grains,  but  some,  22.  The 
quality  varies  greatly,  a  few  being  apparently  of 
good  silver,  but  most  are  very  base. 

Form  of  letters. — I E  still  represents  JE,  but  "  I\  " 
now  invariably  appears,  and  the  Saxon  D  is  usually 
represented  by  T  alone.  The  colons  or  pellets  of 
division  appear  in  one  or  two  instances  as  separating 
the  three  words  on  the  reverse,  and  in  one  instance 
upon  the  obverse,  Fig.  D. 

Having  passed  through  the  transition  stage  of  the 
letter  H  to  fr,  we  commence  that  of  the  D.  This  old 
Saxon  letter  struggled  long  for  existence,  and  is  even 
found  on  one  or  two  curious  coins  of  Stephen.  It  is,  how- 
ever, in  this  type  that  we  find  it  first  superseded.  But 
the  change  was  not  a  happy  one,  for  the  H  was  entirely 


54  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

dropped  for  a  time,  and  the  TH  represented  by  T  alone. 
1'or  instance,  Thetford  has  always  hitherto  been  written 
DETF,  &c.,  but  now  it  becomes  TETEF,  &c.  This  is  the 
last  type  on  which  we  shall  find  IE  used  for  Mt  as  in 
IELFPINE  for  ^LFPINE ;  in  fact,  after  this  diphthongs 
rarely  appear. 

It  is  very  unfortunate  that  we  have  so  incomplete  an 
account  of  the  Shillington,  Bedfordshire,  hoard  of  1871, 
but  the  late  Mr.  Allen,  who  contributed  the  few  parti- 
culars we  have  of  it  (Num.  Chron.  N.S.  xi.,  227),  was  only 
able  to  inspect  "  a  few  of  these  coins."  Of  those  he  saw, 
"  the  most  numerous  were  of  William  II,  Hawkins  type 
250 ;  there  were  others  of  the  Williams  of  244  and  246,  and 
one  of  the  'PAXS'  type."  Of  Henry  I  he  says :"  there 
were  scattered  amongst  the  mass  a  few  imperfectly  struck 
coins,  all  with  one  exception  of  type  252."  There  was 
evidently  one  other  type  at  least  of  the  reign,  and  there- 
fore it  would  not  be  safe  to  infer  that  all  the  three 
previously  described  types  were  not  represented  in  it,  the 
more  so  as  it  would  seem  that  the  few  coins  seen  by  Mr. 
Allen  were  only  "  perhaps  a  third  "  of  some  secured  by  a 
Mr.  Weston,  for  "  the  bulk  went  elsewhere." 

The  coins  we  have  of  this  type  are,  with  few  excep- 
tions, of  decidedly  base  metal,  and  when  we  compare  them 
with  the  standard  coins  of  the  two  Williams,  we  can  well 
understand  the  necessity  for  Henry's  proclamation  of 
1108,  viz  :— 

"  Henry,  King  of  the  English,  for  the  purpose  of  protection, 
enacted  a  law,  that  if  any  one  should  be  detected  in  the  act  of 
theft  or  larceny  he  should  be  hanged.  He  also  enacted  that 
debased  and  false  coins  should  be  guarded  against  with  such 
strictness,  that  whoever  should  be  detected  coining  base  money 
should  lose  his  eyes  and  suffer  mutilation,  without  any  ransom  ; 
aud,  inasmuch  as  very  frequently,  while  pennies  were  being 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OK    HENRY    I.       55 

selected  ('eligebantur'}  they  were  bent  or  broken  and  then 
rejected,  he  ordered  that  no  penny  or 'half-penny  (obol),  which 
he  also  ordered  to  be  made  of  a  round  form,  or  even  farthing, 
if  it  were  round  "  (integer — perfect,  i.e.,  round,  as  opposed  to  a 
cut  coin),  "  should  be  rejected.  From  this  provision  much 
good  resulted  to  the  whole  Kingdom,  because  the  King  thus 
exerted  himself  in  secular  matters  to  relieve  the  troubles  of  the 
land." — (Hoveden,  cf.  Florence  of  Worcester  and  S.  of  Durham.) 

The  reference  to  the  money  being  bent  or  broken  as  a 
test  of  the  quality  during  circulation,  connects  this  passage 
with  one  in  William  of  Malmesbury  inserted  under  his 
description  of  the  character  of  Henry  I,  which  has  hitherto 
been  deemed  incomprehensible.  It  is  : — 

"  When  he  heard  that  broken  money,  although  of  good 
silver,  was  not  accepted  by  the  Merchants,  he  ordered  that  all 
should  be  broken  ('frangi  ')  or  snicked  ('  incidi  ')." 

To  order  the  coin  to  be  broken  would,  of  course,  be 
ridiculous,  but  "  frangi  vel  incidi  "  may  also  mean  "  bent 
or  snicked,"  and  if  collectors  will  refer  to  their  coins  of 
this  type  they  will  discover  that  all,  or  nearly  all — for  Sir 
John  Evans  has  an  exception — have  a  curious  little  cut 
or  snick  through  the  edge,  extending  from  an  eigh'th  to  a 
quarter  of  an  inch  into  the  coin,  the  edges  being  generally 
bent  so  as  to  show  the  quality  of  metal.  This  is  without 
doubt  the  explanation  of  the  passage.  No  previous 
English  type  shows  anything  of  the  kind,  although  a 
somewhat  similar  test  was  known  to  the  Greeks,  from 
whom  perhaps  the  "  learned  "  Henry  borrowed  tbe  idea. 
But  it  is  introduced  now,  and  is  found  in  most  of  the  coins 
of  the  eight  succeeding  types  until  the  great  Inquisition 
of  the  Moneyers  in  1125,  when  it  became  no  longer 
necessary  owing  to  the  great  improvement  in  the  coinage. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  the  snick  does  not  occur  on  any  of 
the  three  preceding  types  of  this  reign,  it  is  an  additional 


56 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


factor  in  determining  the  order  of  succession,  for   they 
must  have  preceded  its  invention. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  has  the  coin  engraved,  Ruding, 
Sup.,  ii.,  ii.,  3,  but  the  engraving  is  altogether  wrong.  It 
should  be — 


Fig.  E. 

Olv.—  .frfiENRI  REX. 

The  ordinary  obverse  of  this  type. 


Rev.— 


ONEBO. 


Of  the  usual  type,  but  the  sides  of  the  pyramids  are 
drawn  together  into  parallel  lines,  and  there  are 
traces  of  a  possible  annulet  within  one  of  the  convex 
curves.  See  under  "York."  Sir  John  Evans  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  this  coin  is  correctly  en- 
graved in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1800,  p.  817. 

Another,  with  a  similar  reverse  design,  so  far  as  the  parallel 
lines  are  concerned,  is  in  the  British  Museum. 


TYPE  V. 
1108—1110. 


Fig.  F. 
HAWKINS,  256. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY    I.       57 

Examples  also  illustrated.  —  Ruding,  i.,  14  ;  Snelling,  i.,  20  ; 
Withy  and  Eyall,  ii.,  16  ;  Num.  Chron:,  x.,  p.  21,  9,  and  1893, 
xii.,  256. 


Obv.—  Legend.     ^.IiENEI  EEX. 

Crowned  bust  in  profile  to  left  ;   before,  a  sceptre  ; 
within  an  inner  circle  springing  from  the  shoulders. 

Rev.  —  Cross  potent,  pierced  ;    an  annulet  in  each  angle  ;    all 
within  an  inner  circle.     [PL  III.,  Nos.  4  —  6.] 

Mints  —  4. 

Southwark  Winchester 

Thetford  York  (?) 

The  coin  queried  by  Hawkins  to  Canterbury  is  of 
Thetford. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  fifteen  months  between 
1108  and  1110. 

Number  of  specimens  noted.  —  6,  but  representing, 
perhaps,  only  5  coins. 

Finds.  —  None  recorded. 

Weight  and  quality.  —  19  to  20  grains  of  good  silver. 

Form  of  letters.  —  The  diphthong  I  E  for  2E.  has  now 
disappeared,  otherwise  the  lettering  is  precisely  as 
the  last.  The  colons  usually  separate  the  words 
of  the  reverse  legend  (only),  and  on  Fig.  F  are 
represented  by  three  pellets. 

This  is  the  latest  type  upon  which  the  obverse  legend 
«i«f\ENEI  EEX  alone  appears.  After  the  proclamation 
of  1108,  one  would  naturally  expect  the  immediate  issue 
of  a  profile  type  such  as  this  is,  for  a  fresh  coinage  was 
obviously  required,  and  there  is  a  marked  improvement  in 
the  quality  of  the  silver  (see  page  35).  From  1108 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  I 


58 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


to  1120  Henry  and  his  Barons,  the  grantees  of  the  minor 
mints,  were  almost  continuously  resident  in  Normandy, 
and  therefore  during  that  period  we  have  but  few  coins 
issued  from  the  chartered  mints. 
Varieties. — None. 


TYPE  VI. 
1110—1112. 


rig.  a. 

HAWKINS,  257. 


Examples  also  illustrated. — Ending,  Sup.,  i.,  i.,  8,  and  Sup., 
ii.,  ii.,  4;  Snelling,  i.,  21;  Speed's  Chronicle,  1611,  p.  434; 
Num.  Chron.,  1893,  xii.,  257. 


Obv. — Legend. 


EEX 
EEE 


EEX 
EEX 
EE: 

EE 


Crowned  bust  facing,  sceptre  to  left ;  no  inner  circle. 
Or,  of  neater  work,  within  an  inner  circle  springing 
from  the  shoulders.  Sometimes  a  small  annulet 
upon  the  left  shoulder. 

Rev. — A  large  quatrefoil  ornamented  with  a  pellet  at  each 
angle ;  annulet  in  the  centre  and  within  each  foil. 
All  within  an  inner  circle.  [PI.  III.,  Nos.  7 — 10.] 


Mints — 5. 

Lincoln 
London 


Norwich 
Southwark 


Winchester 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       59 

Hawkins  gives  York,  but  was  misled  by  the  engraving 
in  Ruding,  cf.  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence's  coin,  Fig.  E. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  ten  months,  between 
1110  and  1112. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 11,  or,  allowing  for  pos- 
sible duplicate  references,  say  9  ;  of  which,  how- 
ever, 3  are  in  the  Bari  Museum,  Italy.  Varieties  1. 

Finds. — Bari,  Italy.     Wallsop,  near  Salisbury. 

Weight  and  quality. — 20|  grains  of  fine  silver. 

Form  of  letters. — As  the  last,  except  that  the  N  is 
sometimes  retrograde  "PI,  and  letters  are  often  in 
monogram. 

The  colons  now  (with  the  exception  of  one  or  perhaps 
two  instances  in  the  two  previous  types)  first  appear 
in  the  obverse  legend. 

With  this  type  commences  the  transition  period  from 
•fc  PiENEI  EEX  to  the  subsequently  more  popular  •{•  IxENEIE 
EEX,  of  which  latter  form  there  have  been  no  previous 
examples,  but  iflxENEI  EEX  is  still  continued  on  a  few  of 
the  coins  of  nearly  every  type  until  the  year  1125. 

Also  upon  this  type  is  introduced  the  custom  of  placing 
occasional  ornaments  in  the  field  of  the  obverse,  as,  for 
instance,  on  some  of  the  coins  a  small  annulet  over  the  left, 
and  a  rosette  of  pellets,  or  knot,  over  the  right  shoulder. 

Sir  John  Evans  discovered  three  of  these  coins  in  the 
Bari  Museum,  Italy,  in  which  neighbourhood  they  had 
been  found  with  several  of  the  next  type,  267,  and  so 
under  that  heading  the  find  will  be  commented  upon. 

Variety — (A)  Sheriff  Mackenzie,  of  Sutherland,  N.B.,  has  a 
unique  "  mule  "  of  obverse  of  this  type  and 
reverse  of  the  next,  267.  (See  Fig.  H.) 


60 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


Fig.  H. 

Obv.— .frriENKI  EEX. 

Similar  to  the  second  described  class  of  this  type. 
Comp.  Snelliug,  i.,  21 ;  EudiDg,  Sup.,  i.,  i.,  8. 

Rev.— ^.PVLPPINE  ON  LVN. 

Cross  potent  voided  and  pierced ;  in  each  angle  a 
trefoil  inwards,  springing  from  an  inner  circle,  as 
the  next  type,  267. 

If  it  should  be  preferred  that  this  is  a  variety,  without 
the  star,  of  the  next  type,  267,  similar  to  PL  IV.,  No.  4, 
then  the  coin  engraved  in  Speed,  Snelling,  and  Ruding, 
must  take  its  place  as  the  "  mule "  connecting  the  two 
types,  for  its  obverse  is  similar  to  Fig.  H,  but  its  reverse 
is  clearly  of  this  type. 


TYPE  VII. 
1112—1114. 


Fig.  I. 
HAWKINS,  267. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  i.,  6:  Num. 
Chron.,  1893,  xii.,  267. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       61 


EEX 
EEX 


EEX 

EEX 


Obv. — Legend. 


Crowned  bust  facing,  sceptre  surmounted  by  a  cross 
to  left ;  usually  a  star  in  the  field  to  right ;  three 
small  annulets  on  the  points  of  the  crown,  and  some- 
times two  above  and  one  on  either  side  of  it ;  all 
within  an  inner  circle  springing  from  the  shoulders. 

Rev. — Cross  potent  voided  and  pierced ;  in  each  angle  a 
trefoil  inwards,  springing  from  an  inner  circle. 
Sometimes  the  stalk  of  the  trefoil  is  represented 
by  a  loop.  [PI.  IV.,  NOS.  1—4.] 


Mints— 11. 

Canterbury 
Chichester 
Exeter 
London 


Norwich 
Sudbury 
Thetford 
Wallingford 


Wareham  or 

Warwick 
Wilton 
Winchester 


The  coin  queried  by  Hawkins  to  Bedford  is  here 
assigned  to  Thetford. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  twelve  months  between 
1112  and  1114. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 29,  of  which,  however, 
22  are  in  the  Bari  Museum,  Italy.  Varieties  4. 

Finds. — Bari,  Italy. 

Weight  and  quality. — Some  21  j  grains  of  fine  silver, 
and  others  17  of  base  metal. 

Form  of  letters. — As  the  last,  but  the  letters  are 
rarely  in  monogram.  Colons  are  now  plentiful 
on  obverse  and  reverse.  On  one  coin,  that  of 
"EAVFVS"  of  London,  the  custom  of  Latinizing 
the  moneyer's  name  is  introduced  (although  a 
single  instance  of  this  had  already  occurred  on 
type  253). 

We  have  ample  evidence  that  this  type  was  next  in 
succession  to  257,  for,  in  addition  to  Sheriff  Mackenzie's 


62  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

interesting  "  mule  "  connecting  the  two  types,  we  have  the 
important  discovery  by  Sir  John  Evans  of  three  specimens 
of  type  257  and  twenty-four  of  this  type  in  the  Bari 
Museum,  Italy.  He  tells  us  (Num.  Chron.,  1892,  p.  83)  that 
they  formed  part  of  a  large  hoard  of  Continental  coins 
then  recently  discovered  in  that  neighbourhood,  and  that 
they  were  the  only  English  types  in  it.  We  have  there- 
fore the  curious  fact  that  these  two  types  alone  found 
their  way  to  Italy  together,  and  so  the  inference  is  that 
they  had  been  exported  from  England  at  the  same  time. 

The  presence  of  .these  English  coins  in  the  Bari  hoard 
is  interesting.  On  the  7th  of  January,  1114,  Henry  gave 
his  daughter  Matilda  in  marriage  to  Henry  Y,  Emperor 
of  the  Romans.  With  her  he  paid  a  dowry  of  £45,000, 
which  he  had  been  collecting  since  1110  (Saxon  Chronicle) 
— the  very  period  of  the  issue  of  these  two  types,  1110- 
1114 — "taking  three  shillings,  as  is  the  custom  of  the 
English  Kings,  from  every  hide  of  land  throughout  Eng- 
land "  (Wendover).  In  1116  the  Emperor  Henry  V 
invaded  Italy,  and  was  for  a  time  encamped  on  the  plains 
of  Bari.  Thus,  there  is  little  doubt  that  Sir  John  ex- 
amined some  of  the  actual  coins  paid  as  the  dowry  of  the 
Empress  Matilda. 

This  may  be  termed  the  second  of  the  ornament  types ; 
on  the  last  an  occasional  annulet,  rosette,  or  knot,  was 
introduced,  but  now  there  is  a  profusion  of  annulets,  and 
sometimes  a  star  in  the  field  of  the  obverse.  On  one  or 
two,  also,  a  quatrefoil  is  introduced  at  the  end  of  the  ob- 
verse legend  (Hawkins'  Plates,  267,  and  Num.  Chron., 
1893,  xii,  267).  There  is  some  variation,  too,  in  the  form 
of  the  sceptre,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  varieties  described 
at  the  end  of  this  type. 

The  star  appears  upon  some  of  these  coins  only,  but 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       63 

others  are  plain  (see  Plate  IY,  No.  4,  Euding,  Sup.  ii.,  i,  6, 
and  Num.  Chron.,  1892,  p.  85)  ;  thus  it  was  not  an  essential 
part  of  the  design.  This  was  the  first  type  engraved  after 
1110,  and  in  that  year  the  Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us  : 

"  In  the  month  of  June  there  appeared  a  star  in  the  north- 
east, and  its  light  stood  before  it  to  the  south-west,  and  it  was 
seen  .thus  for  many  nights,  and  ever  as  the  night  advanced  it 
mounted  upwards  and  was  seen  going  off  to  the  north-east." 

There  is  only  one  other  type  in  the  English  series  upon 
which  an  occasional  star  appears  on  some  of  its  coins  and 
not  on  the  others.  It  is  248  of  Rufus,  and  if  the  position 
assigned  to  this  type  by  Hawkins,  viz.,  the  last  but 
one  of  his  reign,  is  correct,  the  years  of  its  issue  would 
include  1097.  Under  that  year  the  Saxon  Chronicle 
records,  in  almost  identical  language  : 

"  Then  at  Michaelmas,  on  the  4th  before  the  Nones  of  October, 
an  uncommon  star  appeared  shining  in  the  evening  and  soon 
going  down  ;  it  was  seen  in  the  south-west,  and  the  light  which 
streamed  from  it  seemed  very  long  shining  towards  the  south- 
east, and  it  appeared  after  this  manner  nearly  all  the  week." 

There  is  nothing  improbable  in  connecting  the  appear- 
ance of  a  comet  and  the  representation  of  it  upon  the  coin- 
age. It  occurs  on  Roman  coins  with  the  head  of  Julius 
Caesar,  and  when  we  remember  how  the  great  comet  of  1066 
was  believed  to  have  foreshadowed  the  conquest  of  Eng- 
land, how  another  appeared  before  the  victory  of  Tinche- 
brai,  and  how  great  were  the  superstitions  always  attached 
to  astronomical  phenomena  in  mediaeval  times,  we  can 
well  understand  the  popularity  of  the  star  as  a  favourite 
ornament  on  the  coinage  and  seals  of  the  Norman  kings, 
although  it  never  appears  on  the  Saxon  coinage.  Take 
an  example  from  later  times.  On  the  morn  of  Ed- 
ward IV's  first  victory,  that  of  Mortimer's  Cross,  three 
suns  appeared  by  refraction  in  the  heavens.  These  he 


64  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

forthwith  adopted  as  his  badge,  and  when  he  came  to 
the  throne  the  sun  thus  became  the  commonest  mint- 
mark  upon  his  coins. 

Varieties — (A)  The  "mule"  of  obverse  257  and  reverse  of 
this  type  has  already  been  described  under 
the  last. 

(B)  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  has  a  coin  of  this  type  of 

London  upon  which  the  sceptre  is  syir- 
mounted  by  a  quatrefoil  instead  of  a 
cross.  PL  IV.  No.  1. 

(C)  Sir  John  Evans  has  one  without  the  star  in  the 

field,  upon  which  the  shaft  of  the  ordinary 
sceptre  is  floriated,  and  on  the  reverse  the 
usual  trefoils  in  the  angles  of  the  cross 
have  almost  developed  into  quatrefoils,  as 
Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  1,  6  (now  in  the  Hun- 
terian  Museum).  PI.  IV.  No.  4. 

(D)  The  London  coin  in  the  British  Museum  illus- 

trated in  Hawkins  267,  and  Num.  Chron., 
1893,  xii.,  267,  has  a  quatrefoil  at  the 
end  of  the  obverse  legend. 

(E)  Messrs.  Spink   recently  possessed  the  well- 

known  "  mule  "  of  obverse  of  this  type  and 
reverse  of  the  next,  266.  (See  Fig.  J.) 


Fig.  J. 

#&».— *I\ENEIE  :  REX. 

The  ordinary  obverse  of  this  type — with  the  star,  and 
the  shaft  of  the  sceptre  floriated  as  on  Sir  John 
Evans'  variety. 

Rev.—  .frSPERhAVOT  :  ON  :  PAR. 

Cross  potent  ;  in  each  angle,  springing  from  the 
centre,  a  sceptre  surmounted  by  a  quatrefoil; 
between  the  quatrefoils  and  the  arms  of  the  cross, 
a  small  star.  All  within  an  inner  circle  duplicated. 
As  the  next  type,  266. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY    I.       65 

TYPE  VIII. 
1114  —  1116. 


Fig.  K. 
HAWKINS,  266. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ending,  ii.,  7,  and  Sup.  i.,  13  ; 
Snelling,  i.,  16  and  17  ;  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  4  and  6  ;  Num. 
Chron.,  1893,  xii.,  266. 


Obv. — Legend. 


REX 
*I\ENRI  RE 


REX 


Three-quarter  bust  to  right,  crowned  with  a  diadem 
surmounted  hy  three  small  fleurs  or  crosses. 
Sceptre  fleury  in  the  King's  right  hand,  directed 
over  his  shoulder.  Before  the  bust,  to  the  right  of 
the  coin,  the  King's  left  hand  pointing ;  above  it, 
three  stars,  or  roses,  in  the  field,  or  two,  in  one 
instance  three,  in  the  fluid  and  one  at  the  end  of 
the  legend  (see  Pig.  L  and  PI.  IV.,  No.  6).  No 
inner  circle. 

Rvv. — Cross  potent,  in  each  angle,  springing  from  the  centre 
a  sceptre  surmounted  by  a  quatrefoil ;  between  the 
quatrefoils  and  the  arms  of  the  cross,  a  small  star. 
All  within  an  inner  circle,  generally  duplicated. 
[PL  IV,  Nos.  5—8.] 


Fig.  L. 


VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


K 


C>C)  NUMISMATIC  'CHRONICLE. 

Mints — 7. 

Canterbury  Southwark  Wareham  or 

Chichester  Thetford  Warwick 

London  Winchester 


Henry  is  in  England  for  about  ten  months  between 
1114  and  1116. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 10.     Varieties. — 1. 

Finds. — None  recorded 

Weight  and  quality. — 17 — 20|  grains,  one  or  two  fine 
silver,  the  rest  base. 

Form  of  letters. — Exactly  as  the  last,  except  that 
monograms  and  the  reversed  VL  are  discon- 
tinued, and  the  round  G  is  now  introduced  on  one 
specimen.  (PI.  IV.,  No.  7.)  There  are  two  instances 
of  Latinized  moneyers'  names. 

Hawkins  is  not  as  accurate  as  usual  in  his  description 
of  this  type,  viz. : — 

"  Rev. — Cross  potent  over  a  cross  fleury,  a  pellet,  lozenge, 
or  st  ir  in  each  angle.  .  .  .  The  variety  engraved  in  Rud.,  Sup., 
i.,  13,  was  Mr.  White's,  and  is  not  to  be  depended  upon. 
Snelling,  i.,  16  is  most  likely  from  the  same  com." 

Although  the  small  stars  are  nearly  obliterated  on 
Figs.  J  and  K,  no  coin  with  a  cross  fleury  or  pellets  or 
lozenges  on  the  reverse,  has  passed  under  observation 
during  the  collection  of  these  notes,  and  the  error  has 
arisen  because  Ruding,  ii.  7,  and  Snelling,  i.  17,  the 
authorities  quoted  by  Hawkins,  are  incorrectly  engraved  in 
these  resp.cts  from  the  coin  now  in  the  Hunter  Collection, 
Glasgow  University  (PL  IV.,  No, 7).  His  own  engraving 
266  also  will  be  seen  to  be  inaccurate  if  compared  with  the 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       67 

photographic  illustrations  of  the  same  coin  in  Num.  Chron., 
1898,  xii.  266,  and  PI.  IV.,  No.  8. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  coin  engraved  in  Ruding,  Sup.,  i. 
13,  and  Snelling,  i.  16,  which  Hawkins  doubts  as  a 
variety,  is  really  of  the  true  type,  for  both  illustrations 
are  poor  copies  of  the  engraving  in  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.  4, 
which,  so  far  as  the  reverse  is  concerned,  is  a  very  excel- 
lent illustration  of  the  type.  The  coin  it  represents  is 
said  to  have  been  found  "  in  the  centre  of  a  piece  of  the 
ruined  wall  part  of  the  Abbey  of  Reading."  Reading 
Abbey  was  founded  in  1121 ;  so  this  type  would  then  be 
plentiful. 

It  is  curious  how  fashion  influences  the  ornaments  in 
the  designs  of  a  coinage.  In  the  last  type  an  occasional 
star  appeared  ;  now  stars  are  part  of  the  standard  device. 
Similarly  on  one  or  two  of  the  former  coins  a  quatrefoil 
was  introduced ;  now  it  is  a  favourite  ornament,  and 
will  appear  on  three  out  of  the  four  following  types ;  again, 
one  specimen  of  the  last  type  has  an  extra  quatrefoil  at 
the  end  of  the  obverse  legend,  now  two  coins  have  an 
additional  star  in  that  position. 

That  this  type,  which  is  one  of  the  most  artistic  of 
the  Norman  series,  follows  267,  is  shown  by  the  mule 
coin  connecting  the  two  described  under  that  heading  ; 
also  its  general  character  is  that  of  succession.  It  could 
not  have  preceded  it  because  of  the  connecting  links 
between  257  and  267. 

Variety. — (A)  The  "mule"  coin,  Fig.  J,  given  under  267. 


TYPE  IX. 
1116—1119. 


Fig.  M. 
HAWKINS,  264. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  12;  Snelling, 
i.,  19;  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  14;  Num.  Chron.,  x.,  p.  21,  10, 
and  1893,  xii.,  264. 


Olv. — Legend. 


*IxENEIEVS  BE 
.frliENEIEVS  E: 


.frriENBIEVS: 


Crowned  bust  in  profile  to  left ;  in  the  field  before  the 
face,  a  rose  composed  of  a  centre  pellet  with  several 
smaller  ones  surrounding  it.  All  within  an  inner 
circle  broken  at  the  crown.  The  legend  commencing 
to  the  right  of  the  crown  instead  of,  as  has  hitherto 
been  the  invariable  rule,  on  the  left  side  of  the  coin. 

Rev. — Cross  potent,  pierced,  or  with  an  annulet,  in  the 
centre ;  an  annulet,  enclosing  a  pellet,  in  each 
angle.  All  within  an  inner  circle.  [PL  4.,  Nos. 
9-11.] 


Mints — 9. 

Canterbury 
Chichester 
Lewes 


Lincoln 
London 
South  wark 


Stamford 
Thetford 
Wallingford 


Henry  was  not  in   England  during  the  issue  of   this 
type,  i.e.  Michaelmas,  1116-1119. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 12. 
Finds. — None  recorded. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       69 

Weight    and    quality. — 18| — 19 j    grains,    variable 

from  fine  silver  to  very  base. 
Form     of    letters. — As    the    last.      The    Latinized 

moneyer's  name  continues. 

That  this  is  a  much  later  type  than  256,  which  so 
nearly  resembles  it,  is  shown  by  the  neater  form  of  letter- 
ing, by  its  highly  ornamented  workmanship  and  the  rare 
absence  of  a  sceptre,  as  upon  the  next  type  but  one,  by  the 
complete  use  of  the  colons  on  both  obverse  and  reverse,  by 
the  association  of  its  money  ers'  names  with  those  on  the 
immediately  preceding  and  succeeding  types,  and  lastly, 
by  the  first  appearance  upon  it  of  the  curious  formNIEOL 
for  the  name  of  Lincoln,  which  will  presently  become 
common.  From  the  year  1110  to  that  of  1125  we  have  a 
complete  series  of  types,  all  successively  linked  together  by 
the  so-called  "  mule  "  coins,  with  the  exception  of  a  connec- 
ting link  between  266  and  263.  So,  if  the  mule  coins  are  to 
be  relied  upon,  and  stronger  evidence  could  not  be  desired, 
this  type  must  either  follow  here,  between  266  and  263, 
or  be  placed  before  1110  or  after  1125.  But  this  type, 
with  all  those  issued  between  1108  and  1125,  bears  the 
"  snick  "  described  under  252,  so  must  be  subsequent  to 
1108,  and  it  is  certainly  later  than  1110.  To  place  it  after 
1125  is  impossible,  for  we  have  no  debased  coins  during 
the  remainder  of  the  reign  after  the  great  Inquisition  of 
the  Money  ers  of  that  date,  nor  is  there  room,  amongst 
the  types  for  it.  The  explanation  of  the  difference  in 
the  obverse  legend,  and  the  interpolation  of  a  plain 
type  amongst  what  may  be  termed  the  five  quatrefoil 
types,  is  probably  that  given  in  Chapter  V,  viz.,  the 
necessity  for  a  complete  distinction  between  the  profile 
coins  and  the  usual  front-faced  ones.  In  relation  to 


T) 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


this  it  may  be  noticed  that  there  is  much  similarity 
between  most  of  the  profile  types  of  this  reign,  and  in 
fact  of  the  whole  Norman  series.  Moreover,  in  the 
natural  order,  a  profile  type  ought  to  come  now,  for  we 
have  had  three  consecutive  front- faced  ones.  The  rose, 
instead  of  a  sceptre,  upon  it  stamps  it  as  one  of  the  orna- 
ment series,  and  a  rose  appears  on  the  previous  and  the 
succeeding  types. 

Rare  as  this  type  is  to  us,  the  proportion  of  nine  mints 
out  of  twelve  coins  suggests  a  longer  period  of  issue  or 
currency  than  usual,  for,  as  the  gathering  ground  of  a 
find  was  always  fixed,  the  fact  of  so  many  mints  being 
represented  in  a  dozen  specimens  collected  haphazard  at 
the  date  of  deposit,  shows  that  they  must  have  had  ample 
time  to  become  thoroughly  mixed  in  circulation,  or  other- 
wise the  local  mints,  wherever  the  find  or  finds  of  these 
coins  occurred,  would  have  predominated. 

Varieties. — :None. 


TYPE  X. 
1119—1121. 


Fig.  N. 
HAWKINS,  263. 

Examples  also  illustrated.— Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  10,  and  ii.,  i.,  7 ; 
Siielling,  i.,  18;  Num.  Chron.,  1893,  xii.,  263. 


Obv.— Legend.     .frriENRI  REX 
•frhENRI  RE 


E  REX 
*hENRIE:  RE 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       71 

Crowned  bust  facing,  annulets  on  the  points  of  the 
crown  ;  sceptre  fleury,  surmounted  by  a  quatrefoil, 
to  left ;  in  the  field  to  right,  a  star,  or  rose,  above, 
and  quatrefoil  below.  No  inner  circle. 

Rev. — A  large  quatrefoil  enclosing  a  cross  potent,  each  foil 
surmounted  by  an  annulet ;  an  annulet  at  each 
angle  inwards,  and  a  quatrefoil  in  each  spandrel. 
All  within  an  inner  circle.  [PI.  V.,  Nos.  1 — 5.] 

Mints — 5. 

Chester  London  Winchester 

Lincoln  St.  Edmundsbury 

The  coin  assigned  by  Hawkins  to  Sandwich  is  given 
to  St.  Edmundsbury. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  nine  months  between 
1119  and  1121. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 12,  representing,  per- 
haps, 10  coins.  Varieties  1. 

Finds. — None  recorded. 

Weight  and  quality. — 18-19  grains,  base. 

Form  of  letters. — As  the  last. 

The  centre  portion  of  the  reverse  design  of  this  type  is 
almost  identical  with  the  design  of  the  last,  and  if,  as  seems 
to  be  intended,  a  rose  is  one  of  the  ornaments  on  the 
obverse  of  some  of  these  coins — for  it  is  difficult  to  dis- 
tinguish a  star  from  a  rose — we  have  a  close  similarity 
between  the  two  types. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  death  of  Otho  Fitz  Otto  occurred 
at  this  time,  for  after  this  type  there  is  a  complete  change 
of  style  in  the  coinage,  and  the  legend  tfifiENRIE  EEX 
alone  does  not  again  appear.  The  custom,  too,  of  rilling 
all  available  space  with  small  ornaments  is,  after  this 
type,  discontinued,  and  the  sceptre  flory  will  in  future 
be  the  onlv  one  used. 


t'2  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

. 

The  engraving,  Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  10,  and  Snelling,  i.,  18  (of 
the  same  coin,  now  in  the  British  Museum),  reading  +AL  .... 
ON  LVNDO,  does  not  give  the  star  on  the  obverse  ;  but  this, 
however,  is  an  error  owing  to  indistinctness  of  the  original, 
and  the  pellets  opposite  the  ends  of  the  arms  of  the  cross  on  the 
reverse  as  shown  on  the  engravings  do  not  exist.  [See  PL  V., 
No.  4.] 

Variety — (A)  In  the  Hunter  Museum,  Glasgow  University, 
is  the  following  unique  "  mule "  speci- 
men : — 


Fig.  O. 

Obv. — .frtyENRII]   EEX.      The  ordinary   obverse   of    this 
type. 

Rev.— ^.ELFPINE  ON  (SLOP  :     Gloucester. 

Cross   flory  within  an   inner   circle.      As  the   next, 
Hawkins  type,  IV. 


TYPE  XI. 
1121—1123. 


Fig.  P. 
HAWKINS,  TYPE  IV. 

Examples  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  6,  and  Sup.  ii.,  ii.,  6 
Xum.  Citron.,  1881,  iii.,  2,  and  1893,  xi.,  5  (obverse),  xii.,  T.  4 
(reverse).      [In   arranging   the   last-mentioned  plates    the   two 
obverses  were  accidentally  transposed.] 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HKXRY    I.       73 
Obv.  —  Legend. 


EEX  ANGL  .frriENEIE  EEX 

EEX  AN  *1\ENEIEVS  EEX:  AN 

EEX  A  .frhENEILVS  EEX  A 

•frfiENC  EEX  A  .frfiENEIEVS  EEX 

EEX  AN  *hENEIEVS  E 


Crowned  bust  facing  ;  the  crown  almost  plain,  with  a 
label  usually  ending  in  a  small  annulet  at  either 
side.  All  within  an  inner  circle.  The  legend 
commencing  over  the  crown. 

Rev.  —  Cross  flory  within  an  inner  circle.  Barely  a  pellet  in 
each  angle  of  the  cross  and  sometimes  an  annulet  or 
peUet  in  the  centre.  [PI.  V.,  Nos.  6—12.] 

Mints—  15. 

Bristol  Hastings  St.  Edmundsbury 

Canterbury  Lincoln  Southampton 

Chester  London  Southwark 

Chichester  Norwich  Thetford 

Gloucester  Nottingham  Worcester 

The  coin  given  by  Hawkins  to  Leicester  is  here 
assigned  to  Chester. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  twenty  months  be- 

tween 1121  and  1123. 
Number  of  specimens  noted.  —  29,  representing,  per- 

haps, 25  coins,  and  including  4  varieties. 
Finds.  —  Battle  and  Nottingham. 
Average  weight  and  quality.  —  17-21|   grains,  base 

metal,  one  or  two  only  fine  silver. 
Form  of  letters.  —  The  round  C  and  JR  are  introduced 

on  these  coins,  but  the  reversed  VL  is  also  used  on 

others.     Otherwise  as  before. 

Although  this  is  still  one  of  the  "  quatrefoil  "  series 
(as  will  appear  from  a  variety),  it  is  of  very  different  work- 
manship from  the  previous  examples,  and  the  introduc- 

VOL.  I.   FOURTH  SERIES.  L 


74 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


tion  of  a  complete  inner  circle  on  the  obverse  is  an  instance 
which  had  not  occurred  for  some  fifty  years — probably 
before  the  first  Otto  was  appointed  to  office ; — in  fact,  this 
type  is  the  commencement  of  a  short-lived  but  rapid  de- 
terioration in  the  coinage  in  every  respect.  For  ten  years 
Henry  had  spent  little  of  his  time  in  England,  and  the 
coinage  had  become  more  and  more  debased,  until  in  this, 
and  the  four  previous  types,  it  is  the  exception  to  find  a 
coin  of  apparently  anything  like  standard  silver.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  the  obverse  legend  bears  a  striking  simi- 
larity to  Henry's  first  type,  251 ;  and,  like  it,  shows 
much  variety,  and  some  blundering.  This  is  accounted 
for  by  the  supposition  that,  Otho  Fitz  Otto  being  dead,  a 
new  hand  commences  the  sinking  of  the  dies,  and  as  Otto 
the  elder  was,  on  Henry's  accession,  at  first  uncertain  in 
his  legends,  owing  to  the  introduction  of  a  new  name  and 
title,  so  this  engraver  was  uncertain  and  variable  in  the 
work  of  his  first  type.  Possibly  he  was  the  Leostanus 
aurifaber  of  London  mentioned  in  the  Cnihtengild  charter 
of  1125  (see  Commune  of  London,  p.  106). 

That  this  type  clearly  follows  263  is  quite  evident  from 
the  "  mule "  specimen  (Fig.  0)  described  under  the 
previous  type,  connecting  both,  and  that  it  immediately 
precedes  the  next,  258,  will  be  similarly  shown  under  that 
heading.  (Fig.  S.)  The  appearance  of  the  occasional 
round  0  and  Jtt  on  this  type,  coupled  with  the  6  on  type 
266  and  the  reversed  K  throughout,  discloses  the  gradual 
introduction  of  Norman  influences  upon  our  coinage,  until 
upon  some  of  the  remarkable  pieces  of  the  next  reign  we 
have  very  nearly  a  complete  Gallic  alphabet.  These  letters 
tend  to  place  this  type  comparatively  late  in  the  list — or 
at  least  later  than  those  previously  described.  The  Not- 
tingham and  Battle  finds  also  corroborate  this,  for  both 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       75 

contained  this  type  and  only  coins  (with  an  odd  exception 
of  type  251)  issued  later  in  the  reign,  or  in  that  of 
Stephen  (see  page  79). 

The  increased  number  of  mints  of  this  type  is  explained 
by  the  return  of  Henry  and  most  of  his  barons  to  England 
in  November,  1120,  where  he  and  they  stayed  until  1123. 
So  the  chartered  mints  again  appear  in  a  larger  proportion. 

Varieties — (A)  The  "mule"  obverse  of  the  last,  263,  and 
reverse  of  this  type  described  under  the 
former  heading  (see  Fig.  0). 

(B)  The  coin  engraved,  Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  2,  6, 

purchased  by  Messrs.  Spink  at  the  Mon- 
tagu Sale,  having  a  quatrefoil  to  the  right 
of  the  King's  bead.  See  Hastings  and, 
as  to  another,  probably  similar,  London. 
Compare  also  the  Worcester  coin.  [PL  V., 
No.  7.] 

(C)  A  "mule  "  in  tbe  Hunter  Museum,  obverse  of 

the  next  type,  258,  and  reverse  of  this, 
described  under  the  next  type  (see  Fig.  S). 

(D)  Mr.  F.  G.  Lawrence  bad  a  unique  coin,  un- 

fortunately broken,  which,  if  complete, 
would  be  as  follows  : — 


Tig.  Q. 

Obv. — As  tbis  type,  witb  the  labels  terminating  in  annulets 
exactly  as  upon  an  ordinary  obverse. 

Rev. — Cross  moline,  voided,  upon  a  square  with  a  small 
annulet  at  eacb  corner.  All  within  an  inner  circle. 
Instead  of  an  outer  circle  enclosing  tbe  legend,  a 
large  quatrefoil  terminating  at  eacb  angle  in  a  com- 
plete fleur-de-lis  inwards,  a  small  annulet  in  each 
spandrel.  Legends  blank.  Metal  very  base. 


76 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


The  reverse  is  that  of  a  distinct  type,  but  standing 
alone  as  the  coin  at  present  does,  it  is  impossible  to 
decide  whether  it  is  a  mule  of  this  type  -with  a 
reverse  of  some  obverse  die  hitherto  undiscovered, 
or  whether,  as  seems  more  probable,  it  is  a  trial 
piece  of  a  reverse  design  intended  for  the  next  type, 
but  used  with  this  obverse  for  convenience  of  strik- 
ing, as  its  own  obverse  die  might  not  then  have 
been  in  existence. 

Assuming  the  latter  hypothesis,  we  have  a  rather 
simple  explanation  of  the  remarkable  double  circle 
for  the  reverse  legend.  It  will  be  obvious  that 
upon  this  coin  the  large  fleurs-de-lis  occupy  at 
least  one-third  of  the  space  usually  available  for 
the  reverse  legend,  and  so  in  practice  it  was  at  once 
found  impossible  to  place  the  complete  reverse 
legend  upon  it.  Hence  the  die  was  not  adopted, 
but  the  designer  was  determined  to  bring  the 
legend  space  into  play  in  the  design  and  divide  it 
with  ornaments  into  similar  sections.  So  to  enable 
him  to  do  this  he  was  obliged  to  continue  the 
legend  in  a  second  and  inner  circle,  as  will  be 
described  under  the  next  type.  The  fact  that  there 
are  no  letters  legible  on  the  reverse  of  this  coin 
may  support  the  theory  that  it  was  merely  a  trial 
of  the  design  and  that  therefore  a  legend  was  never 
cut. 

The  last  type  of  the  reign  (255)  is  a  fairly  close  imita- 
tion of  the  centre  portion  of  this  reverse  variety, 
and  no  doubt  the  design  of  both  is  merely  varied 
from  that  of  Hawkins  238  of  William  I. 


TYPE  XII. 
1123—1125  (Christmas). 


Fig.  R. 
HAWKINS,  258. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       77 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.  ii.,  i.  3,  and  ii.  Nos. 
12,  13,  and  14;  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  15;  Num.  Chron.,  1893, 
xii.,  258. 

Obv.—  Legend.     I\ENK  IiENBI  hENKE 

Large  crowned  bust  in  profile  to  left;  before,  a  sceptre 
fleury,  sometimes  surmounted  by  an  annulet.  No 
inner  circle.  The  King's  right  hand,  which  is 
very  large  in  proportion  (as  the  left  is  on  266),  is 
brought  before  the  bust  to  hold  the  sceptre.  Some- 
times ornaments  of  one,  or  usually  two,  quatrefoils 
before  the  sceptre,  or  before  the  face,  or  five  small 
annulets  before  the  face. 

Rev^ — Sin  all  cross  within  two  concentric  spaces  for 
the  legend,  the  inner  containing  the  name  of  the 
mint  and  the  outer  that  of  the  moneyer ;  the  word 
ON  being  usually  divided  between  the  two,  but 
sometimes  in  one  or  the  other.  In  the  outer  space 
are  four  equidistant  annulets  enclosing  quatrefoils. 
Scarcely  two  coins  of  this  type  are  alike,  and  so  a 
description  of  each  will  be  given  under  its  mint. 
[PI.  VI.,  Nos.  1—9,  and  see  PL  VIII.] 

Mints — 6. 

Canterbury  Lincoln  Norwich 

Hastings  London  Southwark 

Henry  is  not  in  England  during  the  issue  of  this  type 
— Michaelmas,  1123,  to  Christmas,  1125. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 14,  including  two 
varieties  and  a  cut  halfpenny. 

Finds. — Battle  and  Wallsop  (near  Salisbury). 

"Weight  and  quality. — 20|,  and  the  halfpenny,  9P2 
grains.  The  most  debased  type  of  the  reign. 

Form  of  letters. — The  letters  do  not  show  any  pecu- 
liarities, but  are  small  and  neat.  This  is  the  only 
type  in  the  Norman  regal  series  on  which  the  initial 
cross  to  the  obverse  legend  is  dispensed  with.  The 
annulets  enclosing  quatrefoils,  or  the  cross  com- 


to  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

mencing  tlie  inner  legend,  sometimes  supersede  the 
colons  upon  the  reverse,  although  they  are  still 
used  in  several  instances.  The  old  H  given  in 
Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  ii.,  13,  is  an  engraver's  error  for 
the  usual,  though  indistinct  h  upon  the  coin.  [See 
PL  VI.,  No.  3.] 

This  is  the  most  interesting  type  of  the  reign,  and  the 
design  of  the  two  concentric  legends  was  no  doubt  the 
prototype  of  that  of  the  later  groat,  the  first  example  of 
which,  in  Edward  I's  reign,  not  only  bore  a  large  quatre- 
foil  on  the  obverse,  but  had  the  outer  legend  of  the  reverse 
similarly  broken  up  by  large  floriated  terminations  to 
the  arms  of  the  cross.  Therefore  we  may  infer  from  its 
subsequent  popularity  that,  but  for  the  great  Inquisition 
of  the  Money ers,  which  so  tragically  suppressed  this  issue, 
the  idea  of  the  two  circles  would  not  have  disappeared  so 
suddenly  from  all  designs  of  the  pennies. 

This  type  is  not  only  the  last  of  the  ornament  coins, 
but  also  that  of  the  "  snicked  "  series  as  described  under 
252,  page  55.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  first  since  that 
type  of  which  we  find  the  cut  halfpenny.  (PI.  VI.,  No.  9.) 
The  coins  are  unfortunately  wretchedly  struck,  and  most  of 
them  are  more  or  less  broken  or  cracked.  This  latter  fact 
is  probably  owing  to  their  debasement,  and  the  con- 
sequent custom  of  the  merchants,  referred  to  under  type 
252,  page  55,  of  breaking  them  in  testing  their  quality — a 
custom,  by  the  way,  not  yet  quite  obsolete.  That  this 
type  followed  the  last,  Hawkins,  IV,  is  practically  proved 
by  the  "  mule,"  presently  described  under  the  varieties, 
connecting  the  two,  but  there  are  other  indications  of 
their  close  relationship.  The  name  of  Lincoln  appears 
on  both,  and  only  on  these  two  types,  as  LIEOLEN,  and 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       79 

five  of  the  nine  money ers  whose  names  are  decipherable 
upon  this  type  are  common  to  both. 

In  Num.  Chron.,  N.S.  xiii,  175,  Mr.  Churchill  Babing- 
ton  contributed  an  account  of  twelve  coins,  examined  by 
him,  from  the  Battle  find  of  1860  (?),  two  of  which  were 
of  these  two  types,  and  the  remainder  of  the  last  and 
commonest  of  the  reign,  255. 

As  an  example  of  this  type  also  appeared  in  the 
Wallsop  find,  it  was  evidently  a  comparatively  late  one 
of  the  reign,  for  that  find  was  deposited  in  Stephen's 
reign,  and,  so  far  as  the  nine  specimens  from  it  are 
concerned,  which  happened  to  have  been  engraved  in 
Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  plate  2,  this  type  was  the  earliest  in 
the  find,  the  one  other  of  Henry's  reign  being  his  last 
type  but  one,  262.  But  as  the  next  type,  265,  and  the  last, 
255,  had  already  been  engraved  in  that  work,  and  were 
well  known,  it  is  more  than  probable  they  were  also  re- 
presented in  the  find,  though  not  engraved.  This  would 
give  a  sequence  of  all  the  four  types  from  now  to  Henry's 
death.  Still,  too  much  reliance  should  not  be  placed  upon 
the  appearance  of  a  single  example  in  any  hoard. 

These  uncouth  and  debased  coins  are,  undoubtedly,  by 
far  the  worst  of  the  whole  Norman  series,  and  when  we 
compare  them  with  the  neat  round  and  standard  coinage 
of  the  two  Williams,  we  are  not  surprised  that  Henry 
should  at  last  take  drastic  measures  once  and  for  all  to 
put  an  end  to  the  system  of  gradual  but  increasing  de- 
basement which  had  been  progressing  during  the  last 
four  types,  until  in  this  it  has  reached  its  climax.  Even 
his  prohibition  of  the  cut  halfpenny  of  1108  is  now 
ignored,  and  it  is  significant  of  the  theory  suggested  in 
Chapter  I.,  page  11,  that  its  reappearance  should  occur 
coincidently  with  an  epoch  of  extreme  debasement. 


80  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

No  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  Saxon  chronicler  bitterly 
complains  that : — 

"  This  year,  1124,  the  penny  was  so  bad  that  the  man  who 
had  a  pound  at  the  market  would  hardly,  for  anything,  pass 
twelve  of  these  pennies." 

In  other  words,  out  of  240  pennies  only  some  12  would 
be  accepted  at  their  nominal  value.  Under  the  next  year, 
1125,  the  same  authority  tells  us  : — 

"  Before  Christmas  this  year,  King  Henry  sent  from  Nor- 
mandy to  England,  and  commanded  that  all  the  money ers  of 
England  should  be  deprived  of  their  limbs,  namely  of  their 
right  hands,  and  be  otherwise  mutilated.  And  this  because  a 
man  might  have  a  pound,  and  yet  not  be  able  to  spend  one 
penny  at  a  market.  And  Roger,  Bishop  of  Salisbury  [as  Chief 
Justiciary],  sent  over  all  England  and  summoned  all  of  them  to 
come  to  Winchester  at  Christmas  ;  and  when  they  came  thither 
his  men  took  them,  one  by  one,  and  cut  off  their  right  hands. 
All  this  was  done  within  the  twelve  days,  and  with  much  justice, 
because  they  had  ruined  this  land  with  the  great  quantity  of 
bad  metal  which  they  all  bought." 

Very  similar  passages  occur  in  Wendover,  Florence, 
Annals  of  Winchester,  and  of  St.  Edmuudsbury,  Waverley 
and  Margaii,  Wikes,  Simeon  of  Durham,  Ralph  de  Dicet, 
and  Fordun.  The  majority  of  these  authorities  too  fix 
the  date  as  1125,  not  1124  as  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  which 
commences  its  years  at  Christmas,  rather  suggests.  Wil- 
liam Gemmeticensis  adds  that : — 

"  the  money  was  so  debased  with  tin  that  scarcely  one- 
third  part  was  silver  ;  and  Henry  was  informed  of  it  by  his 
soldiers  in  Normandy,  who  found  they  could  not  purchase  so 
much  with  their  pay  as  they  had  done  theretofore  when  the 
money  was  made  of  silver." 

In  the  multitude  of  chroniclers  there  is  safety;  and  we, 
therefore,  know  that  the  adulteration  of  the  coinage  had 
been  brought  to  such  a  pass  that  this  great  Inquisition 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       81 

of  the  Moneyers  was  held  at  Christmas  1125-6,  and  that 
wholesale  punishment  fell  upon  the  moneyers.  But  to 
mutilate  "  all  the  moneyers  of  England  "  would  have  been 
a  blow  to  the  system  of  coinage  from  which  it  would 
never  have  recovered,  so  a  qualification  of  the  above 
account  must  be  borrowed  from  Florence  and  Wikes,  who 
tell  us  that,  though  all  were  summoned,  those  "  taken 
with  counterfeit  money,"  that  is  convicted,  only  were 
punished.  The  Annals  of  Margan  are  more  explicit,  and 
tell  us  that  the  number  was  94. 

So  far  as  the  eleven  moneyers  whose  names  appear  upon 
our  coins  of  this  type  are  concerned,  six  or  seven  continue 
to  coin  subsequently,  more  by  good  fortune  than  desert, 
one  would  say,  and,  therefore,  only  four  or  five  stop, 
perhaps  tragically,  now.  Hence  "  all  the  moneyers  " 
could  not  have  been  punished,  for,  after  conviction,  a 
moneyer  would  never  again  be  allowed  to  assume  office, 
even  if  physically  competent  to  do  so. 

During  the  whole  period  of  the  issue  of  this  type,  Henry 
and  his  barons  were  engaged  in  suppressing  the  revolt  in 
Normandy,  and,  therefore,  nearly  all  of  the  grantees  of  the 
private  mints  would  be  abroad  with  him.  Hence  these 
mints  would  be  dormant,  and  if  all  the  moneyers  then 
coining  in  England  had  been  punished,  there  would  not 
have  been  so  very  many  of  them. 

As  this  was  the  issue  of  a  profile  type  it  was  probably 
intended  to  now  limit  the  legal  currency  to  it  and  the 
two  types  issued  since  264,  but  the  Inquisition  of  the 
Moneyers  led  to  an  immediate  and  entire  change  in  the 
tender.  This  was  accomplished  by  the  succession  of  a 
second  profile  type,  which  would  at  once  call  in  this  one, 
and,  therefore,  as  its  currency  was  limited  to  the  period 
only  of  its  issue,  258  must  necessarily  remain  a  scarce 

VOL.  I.  FOURTH  SERIES.  M 


82 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


coin  in  our  cabinets,  for,  apart  from  other  reasons,  it  thus 
had  only  an  authorized  currency  of  about  fifteen  months, 
and  there  would  be  little  opportunity  for  the  deposit  of 
many  hoards  of  it  to  await  the  accident  of  discovery. 

Varieties. — (A)  The  Hunter  Museum,  Glasgow  University, 
has  a  unique  "mule"  obverse  of  this  type 
and  reverse  of  the  last,  namely  : — 


Kg.  8. 

Olv. — I\ The  ordinary  obverse  of  this  type,  with 

one,  probably  two,  quatrefoils  before  the  sceptre. 

Rev.— BYEEriAET  :  O Cross  flory,  with  the 

annulet  in  the    centre.      As  the  previous    type, 
Hawkins  IV. 


(B)  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  has  a  unique  variety,  on 
which  the  usual  position  of  the  moneyer's 
name  and  of  that  of  the  mint  is  trans- 
posed, and  which  bears  also  other  slight 
deviations  from  the  ordinary  type, 
namely : — 


Fig.  T. 


Olv. — IiEKR  .  The  ordinary  obverse  of  this  type,  with  two 
quatrefoils  before  the  sceptre;  a  small  annulet  sur- 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       83 

mounting  the  sceptre  and  another  upon  the  outline 
of  the  nose  as  on  PI.  VI.,  No.  3,  but  not  shown  on 
Fig.  T. 

Rev.— .J.BLAEMN  :  ON  LV(N)DE.  Of  this  type,  but  the 
moneyer's  name  >J<BLAEMN"  is  in  the  inner  space, 
and  the  remainder  of  the  legend  in  the  outer.  See 
under  London. 

NOTE. — Mr.  Hawkios'  engraving,  258,  does  not 
show  the  small  cross  in  the  centre  of  the 
reverse,  but  this  is  owing  to  a  small  piece 
having  been  broken  out  of  the  coin,  for 
there  are  still  some  indications  remaining 
of  its  original  impression.  [PI.  VI.,  No.  4.] 


TYPE  XIII. 
1126  (January)— 1128  (Michaelmas). 


Fig.  U. 
HAWKINS,  265. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  ii.,  5  ;  Snelling,  i.,  22  ; 
Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  17,  18,  19,  20,  and  21.  Vertue's  plates 
(area  1738),  for  the  portrait  of  Henry  I.  Num.  Chron.,  N.  S. 
xx.,  xi.,  18;  1893,  xii.,  265  ;  Montagu  Catalogue,  298. 


Obv.—  Legend.      .frftENEIEVS  .j.I\ENEIEVS  :  E: 

EE: 


Crowned  bust  in  profile  to  left  ;  before,  a  sceptre,  the 
Bang's  right  hand  being  brought  before  the  bust  to 
hold  the  aceptre,  as  on  the  last  type;  within  an 
inner  circle  springing  from  the  shoulders. 

Treasure  of  four  slightly  concave  sides  terminating  at 
each  angle  in  a  fleur-de-lis,  and  enclosing  a  star  ;  an 


84 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


ornament  composed  of  three  small  annulets  usually, 
but  not  always,  joined  together  opposite  each  side 
of  the  tressure.  All  within  an  inner  circle.  [Pis. 
VI.,  10—11,  and  VII.,  1—3.] 


Mints— 22. 

Barnstaple 

Bath 

Bedford 

Bristol 

Canterbury 

Colchester 

Dorchester 

Lincoln 


London 

Northampton 

Norwich 

Nottingham 

St.  Edmundsbury 

Southampton 

Stamford 


Sudbury 

Tanrworth 

Thetford 

Wallingford 

Warwick 

Winchester 

Worcester 


Henry  is  in  England  for  about  twenty-four  months 
between  January,  1126,  and  Michaelmas,  1128. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 73,  but  allowing  for 
possible  duplicate  references,  and,  say,  half  the 
Wallingford  coins — many  of  which  are  false — 
perhaps  55.  There  are  also  several  cut  halfpennies. 

Finds. — None  recorded,  although  this  type  is  believed 
to  have  appeared  in  the  Milford  Haven  hoard, 
referred  to  under  the  next  type. 

Average  weight  and  quality. — Full  weight,  and  of 
standard  silver. 

Form  of  letters. — The  lettering  makes  a  decided 
advance  in  its  modernisation  under  this  type. 
Although  the  D  still  occasionally  appears,  Tfi  is 
now  for  the  first  time  used  in  its  place.  W,  upon 
a  doubtful  authority,  however,  is  said  in  one  instance 
to  supersede  the  hitherto  invariable  Saxon  P.  The 
use  of  the  colons,  on  the  reverse,  at  least,  is  almost 
universal,  and  letters  are  rarely  joined  in  mono- 
gram. On  the  reverse  of  a  Southampton  coin,  the 
old  H  once  more  appears,  but  as  this  seems  to 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       85 

be  the  only  instance  in   the  reign  after  the  year 
1106,  it  may  be  accepted  as  an  accident  on  the 
part  of  the  engraver  of  the  die.  Latinized  moneyers' 
names  are  by  no  means  uncommon,  and  generally 
the  legends  are  neat  and  most  carefully  executed. 
"  Afterwards,"  says  Florence   of  Worcester,  referring 
to  the  great  Inquisition  of  Moneyers  of   1125,  mentioned 
under  the  last  type,  "  by  a  change  in  the  coinage  all  articles 
became  very  dear,  and  in  consequence  a  great  scarcity 
ensued,  and  numbers  died  of  famine."  Evidently  Florence, 
or  rather  his  continuator,  was  not  a  bi-metallist;  but  the 
importance  of  the  passage  to  us  is  to  show  that  the  coin- 
age was  at  once  restored  to  the  old  standard  silver.     We 
have   seen  that  the  last  type,  according  to  William  Gem- 
meticensis,  only  contained  one-third  part  of  silver,  and, 
therefore,  probably  two,  or  even  three,  of  the  old  pennies 
would  have  to  be  exchanged  with  the  moneyers  for  one  of 
the  new,  and  so  it  would  entail  much  loss  and  distress 
upon  the  public. 

Under  the  year  1154-5  Wendover  recounts  the  story 
of  the  conversion  of  St.  Wulfric,  already  more  than  once 
referred  to  here,  which  he  says  occurred  twenty-nine  years 
before,  thus  placing  it  at  the  commencement  of  this  type, 
1126.  In  it  occurs  the  passage  : 

"  for,  at  that  time,  there  was  a  new  coinage  in  England  in  the 
days  of  Henry  I,  but  still  rare  on  account  of  its  recency. 
Wulfric  replied  (to  the  mendicant)  that  he  did  not  know  whether 
he  had  any  of  the  new  coinage  or  not.  Upon  which  the  man 
said,  '  Look  into  your  wallet  and  you  will  find  there  two  pieces 
and  a  half.'  " 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  cut  half-pennies  were 
only  reintroduced  in  the  last  type,  and  we  have  similar 
examples  of  this,  and  also  of  the  types  following,  to 
the  close  of  the  reign,  and  so  this  important  little  anec- 


86  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

dote  corroborates  two  facts.  One,  that  the  issue  of  this 
standard  type  after  the  base  ones  which  had  gone  before 
it,  was  a  change  in  the  coinage  of  such  importance  as  to 
be  remembered  nearly  thirty  years  afterwards;  and, 
two,  that  the  cut  half-penny  was  then  again  in  circulation. 

Naturally  this  change  required  a  second  consecutive 
profile  type,  and  so  its  issue,  according  to  the  rule  sug- 
gested in  Chapter  V,  p.  36,  invalidated  the  tender  of  every 
type  issued  prior  to  it,  thus  compelling  everyone  to  change 
his  coin  into  the  new  coinage,  and  causing  such  scarcity 
of  money  that  not  only  was  the  event  long  remembered, 
but  the  people  suffered  the  cost  of  re-establishing  the 
standard,  and  so  "all  articles  became  very  dear." 

It  must  be  apparent  that  the  hand  which  designed  the 
last  uncouth  type  never  cut  this,  the  most  beautiful  speci- 
men of  workmanship  of  any  reign  prior  to  that  of  Henry 
VII  at  least.  But  we  may  assume  that  the  Inquisition 
and  "  change  in  the  coinage  "  necessarily  brought  about 
the  fate  of  the  designer  who,  to  some  extent,  was  respon- 
sible for  the  late  deterioration,  and  so  the  incompetent 
artist  of  the  two  previous  types  would  be  dismissed.  With 
him  disappeared,  so  far  as  this  reign  is  concerned,  the 
fashion  of  ornaments  and  of  irregularity  of  design,  and 
now,  for  the  future,  every  die  is  practically  a  facsimile  of 
the  others  of  its  type  so  far  as  the  device  is  concerned. 

The  Inquisition  also  seems  to  have  had  a  beneficial 
effect  upon  the  moneyers,  not  only  as  to  the  purity  of 
the  metal,  but  in  abolishing  the  issue  of  "  mule  "  coins, 
for  we  find  no  more  during  the  reign.  If  the  "  mules  " 
were  mere  accidents  of  using  a  wrong  die,  it  is  curious 
that  they  disappear  with  the  Inquisition,  but  as  by  so 
using  an  old  one  the  moneyer  saved  his  fees  for  the  new 
die,  the  accident  theory  is  very  doubtful  to  say  the  least 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY  OF  THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       87 

of  it,  and  a  Pipe  Roll  entry  quoted  under  "Winchester 
more  than  strengthens  the  doubt. 

The  following  passage  in  the  Dialogue  (circa  1180) 
seems  to  define  this  offence  as  "  false  stamping,"  or  to  be 
literal  "  in  falsa  imagine"  =  false  in  the  device  : — 

"Disciple:  Inasmuch,  then,  as  all  money  of  this  Kingdom 
ought  to  have  the  stamped  image  of  the  King,  and  all  moneyers 
are  bound  to  work  according  to  the  same  weight,  how  can  it 
happen  that  all  their  work  is  not  of  one  weight  ? 

"  Master :  That  is  a  great  question  ....  but  it  can  happen 
through  forgers  and  clippers  or  cutters  of  coin.  Thou  knowest, 
moreover,  that  the  money  of  England  can  be  found  false  in  three 
ways  :  false  namely  in  weight,  false  in  quality,  false  in  the 
stamping.  But  these  kinds  of  falsification  are  not  visited  by  an 
equal  punishment." — Henderson's  Historical  Documents,  cf.  Dr. 
Stubbs'  Select  Charters. 

The  designer  of  this  type,  possibly  the  aurifaber  Wyzo 
Fitz  Leosfcan  also  mentioned  in  the  Cnihtengild  charter 
of  1125,  may  be  presumed  to  be  the  "  magister"  referred 
to  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1130,  for  William  Fitz  Otho,  the 
hereditary  designer,  there  pays  ten  silver  marks  on  account 
of  fees  amounting  to  £36  Os.  lOd.  that  he  might  no  longer 
have  a  Master  over  him.  This  no  doubt  occurred  upon 
the  completion  of  his  apprenticeship  and  succession  to 
office  ;  therefore,  at  the  date  of  this  issue,  1126,  William 
Fitz  Otho  would  probably  be  under  the  directions  of  a 
freshly  appointed  engraver.  In  the  same  Roll  Wyzo  is 
mentioned  as  owing  half  a  mark  of  gold  for  succession  to 
his  father  Leofstan's  lands  and  office.  This  official, 
whether  Wyzo  or  not,  was  the  only  artist  from  the  date 
of  the  Conquest  to  the  reign  of  Henry  VII  who  attempted 
anything  further  than  a  stereotyped  representation  of  an 
English  King.  To  say  that  he  produced  an  actual  por- 
trait of  Henry  I  would  be  perhaps  to  exaggerate,  for  in 
1126  the  King  was  in  his  57th  year,  and  the  type  usually 
represents  a  comparatively  young  man  [but  a  parallel  case 


88  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

is  instanced  upon  our  postage  stamps  of  to-day],  Vertue 
in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  recognised  this 
attempt,  for  he  adopted  it  as  the  model  for  his  portrait  of 
Henry  I,  a  portrait  which  has  since  become  the  generally 
accepted  likeness  of  that  monarch.  Taking  it,  therefore, 
with  all  qualifications,  we  may  well  assume  that  the  bust 
very  accurately  represents  the  King  as  he  was  seen  with 
sceptre  and  robes  wearing  his  crown  at  the  three  great 
feasts  of  the  year  in  1126. 

On  several  types  of  the  Confessor  his  historic  beard 
had  been  faithfully  represented,  and  the  careful  observer 
will  notice  that  this  is  the  first  Norman  coin  which  por- 
trays long  hair.  Moreover,  it  is  gathered  together  into  a 
sort  of  queue  terminating  in  a  curl  or  annulet.  The 
head  is  in  profile  and,  therefore,  only  shows  one  such 
queue,  but  on  Henry's  statue  at  Rochester  Cathedral  a 
similar  one  is  shown  over  each  shoulder,  and  certain 
ancient  chessmen  discovered  in  the  Isle  of  Lewis  in  1831, 
probably  of  this  date,  have  the  King's  coiffure  represented 
almost  exactly  as  upon  the  coin.  This  fashion  of  long 
hair  was  a  recent  innovation  at  the  very  date  of  the  issue 
of  this  type,  and  Matthew  of  Westminster  tells  us  that 
in  1127  "King  Henry  caused  all  the  soldiers  of  England 
to  cut  their  hair  a  proper  length,  as  previously  they  vied 
with  women  in  the  length  of  their  hair."  Orderic  cor- 
roborates this  custom  of  the  nobility  by  recounting  that 
William  Louvel,  to  facilitate  his  escape  from  the  battle  of 
Bourg-Theroude,  in  1124,  had  his  hair  cropped  "  so  that 
he  might  pass  (through  the  enemies'  lines)  as  a  yokel." 
After  Henry's  proclamation  of  1127  against  the  fashion 
we  do  not  again  find  anything  of  the  kind  upon  his  coins. 

It  is  a  common  error  to  describe  the  design  of  this  and 
certain  types  of  Stephen  and  Henry  II  as  "bust  in 


A  NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       89 

armour,  &c."  The  mistake  has  arisen  from  the  simi- 
larity of  the  decorative  pearls  upon  the  mantle  to  the 
bosses  or  rivets  of  the  far  later  gorget,  for  studs  and 
bosses  were  unknown  in  this  form  until  their  necessity 
arose  on  the  introduction  of  plate  armour  in  the  four- 
teenth century.  The  Norman  warrior  was  invariably 
clad  in  the  long  and  plain  mail  hauberk,  so  accurately 
represented  by  the  full-length  figure  of  EVSTAEIVS  upon 
the  coin  (Hawkins,  283)  photographed  in  the  Montagu 
Catalogue  No.  358. 

Henry  is  in  England  during  nearly  the  whole  period  of 
the  issue  of  this  type,  hence  the  large  number  of  its  mints. 

Varieties. — None ;  save  the  trefoil  as  a  mint  mark  upon  the 
reverse  star  described  under  Peterborough 
and  Stamford. 

Fortunately  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence  has  recently  ex- 
posed several  forgeries  of  this  type,  and 
of  a  "mule"  of  it  and  255  (Num.  Chron., 
1899,  p.  241).  If  this  latter  variety 
had  been  accepted  as  genuine  it  would 
have  caused  endless  trouble  in  arranging 
the  order  of  this  and  the  last  two  types  of. 
the  reign,  for  262  most  certainly  inter- 
venes between  265  and  255. 

TYPE  XIV. 
1128—1131. 


Fig.  V. 
HAWKINS,  262. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  11,  ii.,  6;  Pait 
ii.,  i.,  5  and  ii.,  7  ;  Snelling,  i.,  23  ;  Withy  and  Byall,  ii.,  7,  8, 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  N 


90 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


9,   10.     Speed's  Chronicle,    1611,   p.  455;  Num.   Chron.,  xii., 
p.  138,  1,  2,  and  84  1893,  xii.,  262;  Archceohgia,  1822,  540. 


Obv.—  Legend. 


.frftENRIEVS: 
.fhERIEVS 


.frhENRIEVIS  R 
.frhENRIEVS  RE 
R  :     *I\ENRIEVS  REX 

Crowned  bust  facing  ;  sceptre  flory  (held  in  the  King's 
right  hand)  to  the  left,  and  a  star  to  the  right  of  the 
head;  suspended  from  either  side  of  the  crown, 
three  pellets.  All  within  an  inner  circle  springing 
from  the  shoulders. 

Rev  .  —  A  large  quatrefoil  enclosing  a  star  upon  a  cross  of 
pellets;  each  foil  surmounted  by  three  annulets 
joined;  opposite  each  spandrel  a  fleur-de-lis  inwards 
springing  from  an  inner  circle  enclosing  the  whole. 
[PI.  VII.,  Nos.  4—7.] 

The  variation  mentioned  by  Hawkins  and  engraved 
262  and  Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  1,  5,  of  a  cross  of  four 
pellets  instead  of  the  star  on  the  obverse  seems 
to  be  an  engraver's  error. 

The  Bristol  coin  questioned  by  him  because  of  its 
having  been  White's,  aud  classed  as  a  variety,  is 
now  in  the  Hunter  Museum  and  is  of  the  ordinary 
type  (Ruding,  Sup.  i.,  11).  He  has  not  noticed  that 
all  well  struck  coins  of  this  type  bear  the  star  on 
the  obverse. 


Mints— 30. 

Bath 

Bristol 

Canterbury 

Carlisle 

Chester 

Colchester 

Dorchester 

Durham 

Exeter 

Gloucester 

Hereford 


Huntingdon 

Ipswich 

Leicester 

Lincoln 

London 

Northampton 

Nottingham 

St.  Edmundsbury 

Salisbury 

Southwark 


Stamford 
Sudbury 
Tamworth 
Thetford 
Wareham  or 
Warwick 
Wilton 
Winchester 
Worcester 
York 


Hawkins  gives  Norwich,  Romney,  and  Sandwich,  but 
the  coins  are  here  assigned  respectively  to  North- 
ampton, London,  and  St.  Edmundsbury,  for  reasons 
detailed  under  those  headings. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.       91 

Henry  is  in  England  for    about    eighteen    months 

between  1128  and  1131. 
Number  of  specimens  noted. — 135. 
Finds. — Watford  and  Milford  Haven. 
Weight  and  quality. — 19 1  to  22|  grains  of  standard 

metal. 

Form  of  letters. — As  the  last  type,  but  not  quite  so 
neat.  Although  the  Saxon  P  is  still  general,  the 
modern  W  appears  on  the  coins  of  several  mints. 
The  D  (unless  "BAD"  for  Bath  includes  it)  has 
entirely  ^disappeared.  On  dies  bearing  the  names 
of  two  Winchester  moneyers,  the  colons  at  the  end 
of  the  reverse  legend  are  varied  thus  •*•  and  on  a 
Gloucester  coin  '.' 

We  have  ample  evidence  that  this  was  the  last  type 
but  one  of  the  reign.  The  Watford  find  of  1818,  described 
by  Mr.  Rashleigh  in  The  Numismatic  Chronicle  xii.,  138, 
was  deposited  in  Stephen's  time,  but  contained  some  480 
pennies  and  cut  half- pennies  of  Henry  I.  Of  these, 
58  were  of  this  type,  and  the  remainder  of  the 
next,  255.  There  were  no  other  types  or  varieties  so  far 
as  Henry's  reign  was  concerned,  and  as  the  whole  find 
comprised  over  eleven  hundred  coins,  these  two  types  must 
have  been  the  last  issued  and  the  only  types  of  his  still  in 
general  circulation  at  the  date  of  the  deposit.  This  fact 
must  have  escaped  attention  or  no  one  would  have  sug- 
gested any  other  date  for  these  coins. 

But  that  is  not  all ;  our  oldest  public  record,  with  the 
exception  of  Domesday,  is  an  "  odd  volume  "  of  the  Great 
Roll  of  the  Pipe  for  the  year  1130.  The  Pipe  Roll  was 
probably  a  sequel  to  Domesday,  though  perhaps  not 
instituted  until  early  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  when  he 
remodelled  the  Exchequer.  It  was  continued  every  year 


92 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


from  that  event  to  modern  time3,  but  although  it  is  marvel- 
lous that  we  have  practically  a  complete  series  since  the 
second  year  of  Henry  II,  this  is  the  only  year  remaining 
to  us  in  the  interim  prior  to  1154-5.  It  contains  the 
accounts  rendered  to  the  Exchequer  by  the  various 
Sheriffs  of  the  Kingdom  made  up  to  Michaelmas  in  every 
year,  and  this  particular  one,  therefore,  contains  the  period 
September  30th,  1129,  to  September  29th,  1130.  As  it  is 
not  actually  dated  it  was  formerly  assigned  to  various  years, 
such  as  the  eighteenth  of  Henry  I,  the  fifth  of  Stephen,  and 
the  first  of  Henry  II,  but  since  Dr.  Hunter  in  1833  first 
correctly  attributed  it,  those  who  have  studied  it  have 
found  this  date  to  be  ascertained  beyond  question 
from  its  internal  evidence.  As,  however,  it  will  be 
quoted  again  and  again  in  the  following  pages,  its 
date  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  this  subject,  and, 
therefore,  if  any  doubt  should  still  remain  the  following 
perhaps  additional  proofs  may  shortly  be  quoted  from 
the  dozens  it  contains.  It  refers  to  the  then  Bishop  of 
Winchester  as  having  lately  been  Abbot  of  Glastonbury 
— this,  therefore,  was  Henry  of  Blois,  who  was  nppointed 
in  1129,  so  the  date  could  not  have  been  earlier  than 
that  year.  Hence,  as  it  contains  entries  of  the  expenses 
in  connection  with  the  visit  of  Henry's  court  to  Wood- 
stock, it  must  be  for  that  year,  1129-1130,  as  Henry  only 
held  a  Court  there  twice,  viz.,  in  1123,  and  at  Easter, 
1130.  From  Woodstock  he  went  to  Canterbury  with 
Henry  of  Winchester  on  May  4th  to  attend  the  conse- 
cration of  the  Cathedral,  and  four  days  afterwards  to 
Rochester  (Huntingdon,  Saxon  Chronicle,  &c.),  and  the 
Roll  contains  an  item  of  3s.  4d.  for  the  repair  of  Roches- 
ter Bridge  "  against  the  coming  of  the  King." 

It  may  be  called  "  a  common-place  book  "  of  the  King- 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.       93 

dom,  for  it  records  everything  that. occurred  of  a  financial 
character,  from  the  cost  of  the  candles  still  kept  burning 
over  the  late  Queen  Matilda's  tomb  at  Westminster,  to 
the  fees  of  a  widow  for  the  privilege  of  remaining  un- 
married. But  what  concerns  us  most  are  various  entries 
of  fines  and  forfeits  upon  the  conviction  of  moneyers  for 
offences  against  the  coinage.  These  would  probably  be 
fines  for  short  weight,  as  many  of  our  coins  of  this  type 
are  still  below  the  standard.  They  will  be  given  in  detail 
under  the  history  of  the  various  mints,  but  with  few 
exceptions  the  financial  portion  of  the  conviction  only 
is  recorded,  for  the  corporal  punishment  concerned  the 
moneyer,  not  the  Exchequer.  The  actual  dates  of  the 
convictions,  unless  they  happen  to  occur  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  current  year,  are  not  given,  and  we  find  in 
the  later  Rolls  that  fines  were  often  paid  off  by  instalments 
extending  over  three  or  four  years,  but  the  credit  for  the 
year  and  the  balance  remaining  due  are  all  that  is  entered, 
so  there  is  nothing  to  tell  us  to  a  year  or  two  in  or  before 
1130,  when  the  conviction  occurred,  unless  it  is  entered 
under  "  Nova  Placita." 

Now  nearly  all  these  unfortunate  moneyers  thus  men- 
tioned in  the  Roll  are  men  whose  names  appear  upon  this 
type,  and  the  remainder  are  the  issuers  of  the  last,  265. 
After  conviction  the  moneyer,  of  course,  lost  his  office, 
so,  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  instances  only — ex- 
plainable no  doubt  by  the  trivial  character  of  the  offence 
and,  consequently,  the  infliction  of  a  mere  fine,  see  the 
extract  from  the  Dialogue,  p.  87 — their  names  do  not 
appear  upon  the  next  and  commonest  type  of  the 
reign,  255.  Other  moneyers'  names  also  occur  in  this 
Roll  under  pleasanter  auspices,  such  as  paying  succession 
duties,  &c.,  and  are  not  only  identified  on  the-  current, 


94  NUMISiMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

or  on  the  previous,  but  also  upon  the  following  types,  for 
there  was  nothing  to  interrupt  their  duties.  So  we  have 
the  best  of  evidence  that  in  1129-1130  type  265  had 
recently  been  issued,  262  was  the  current  type,  and  255 
was  to  follow.  This  perfect  identity  between  the  moneyers 
of  the  Roll  and  those  of  the  types  surely  proves  the  general 
theories  of  this  work,  namely  :  (1)  That  our  coins  of  the 
reign  as  a  whole  are  practically  a  complete  representation 
of  the  coinage  of  the  time,  for  otherwise  half  the  moneyers 
recorded  in  the  Roll  would  be  unknown  to  us ;  (2)  That 
the  mints  by  grant  did  not  coin  continuously  but  only 
under  conditions  such  as  those  already  explained,  for  other- 
wise we  should  find  entries  in  the  Roll  of  some  moneyers  at 
least  of  those  mints  of  which  we  have  no  coins  of  this  and 
the  previous  type,  although  we  know  that  they  were  in 
subsequent  operation,  and  which,  therefore,  must  have  been 
dormant  at  the  particular  period — e.g.,  Dover,  Hastings, 
Lewes,  Oxford,  Pevensey,  Shaftesbury,  Shrewsbury,  and 
Taunton.  These  two  theories  are  thus  checked  by  an 
accidental  system  of  double  entry  upon  the  coins  and  in 
the  Roll — independent  testimony  which  until  now  has 
lain  buried  in  the  earth  and  in  the  Record  Office  for  nigh 
upon  eight  hundred  years. 

Unfortunately,  the  JVlilford  Haven  hoard  has  remained 
one  of  the  many  secrets  of  Treasure  Trove.  But  some  years 
ago  a  number  of  coins  of  this  type,  and  the  previous  one  265, 
said  to  be  from  a  then  recent  find,  came  under  examination 
for  these  notes,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  they  were  a  por- 
tion at  least  of  it.  They  were  squandered,  and  are  here  en- 
tered under  the  names  of  various  owners  without  reference 
to  the  find  for  lack  of  evidence  to  that  effect.  But  a  few 
specimens  of  this  type  are  so  recorded,  as  they  are  known 
to  have  come  from  it  through  a  different  source. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       95 

The  fact  that  the  modern  "  W  "  now  appears  on  the 
coins  of  several  mints  corroborates  the  late  date  assigned 
to  this  issue,  and  this  is  still  further  supported  by  the 
first  use — so  far  as  Henry's  reign  is  concerned — of 
CESTER  for  Chester  in  place  of  some  form  of  the  old 
name  LEIGECEASTEE,  which  now  disappears,  Cestre  or 
Cester  is  also  the  name  invariably  used  in  the  1130  Roll. 

After  the  great  Inquisition  of  1125,  the  period  of  issue 
of  each  type  seems  to  have  been  gradually  lengthened,  for 
no  doubt  the  moneyers  had  complained  of  the  constant 
expense  of  the  frequent  changes  in  mitigation  of  their 
punishments.  The  currency  of  the  last  was  about  two 
years,  of  this  three,  of  the  next  four,  and  of  Stephen's 
first  type  at  least  five  years. 

The  large  number  of  mints  of  the  last  three  types  of 
the  reign  is  in  a  measure  due  to  their  longer  period  of 
issue,  but  the  number  of  this  and  the  last  type  must  have 
been  influenced  by  Henry's  summons  to  all  his  barons  to 
attend  the  great  council  of  Northampton  in  September, 
1131,  which  would  bring  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  grantees 
of  the  chartered  mints  into  England. 

Varieties. — None. 

TYPE  XV. 
1131—1135. 


Fig.  W. 
HAWKINS,  255. 


96  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Examples  also  illustrated. — Ruding,  ii.,6;  Snelling,  i.,  24  ; 
Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  22,  23,  24,  25  and  26  ;  Archceologia,  1822, 
p.  540;  Num.  Chron.,  xii.,  p.  138,  3,  5,  6  and  7 ;  1883,  vii., 
1;  1893,  xii.  ,255. 

Obv. — Legend. 

•fr  ftENRI :  (one  instance  only)  >{•  IiERIE VS 

*  fiENRIE  :  *  hENRIEVS 
•frriENRlEV:  ^.hENEGVS 

*  h  ERI6 V  *  riENRlE  VS  R : 

Crowned  bust  three-quarters  to  the  left,  otherwise  the 
type  is  identical  in  design  with  the  obverse  of  the 
last,  except  that  the  star  is  oruitted  and  the  crown 
arched. 

.Rev. — Cross  fleury,  with  a  pellet  in  each  angle  and  some- 
times a  pellet  or  small  annulet  in  the  centre,  upon 
a  square  of  slightly  concave  sides  terminating  in 
fleurs  at  the  corners.  All  within  an  inner  circle. 
[PI.  VII.,  8—12.] 

Mints— 21. 

Bath  Hereford  Oxford 

Bristol  Huntingdon  St.  Edmundsbury 

Canterbury  Ipswich  Southampton 

Carlisle  Lincoln  Stamford 

Chester  London  Thetford 

Exeter  Northampton  Winchester 

Gloucester  Norwich  York 

The  coins  given  by  Hawkins  to  Sandwich  are  trans- 
ferred to  St.  Edmundsbury. 

Henry  is  in  England  for  about  twenty-four  months 
between  1131  and  1135. 

Number  of  specimens  noted. — 500. — Another  hun- 
dred or  more  have  been  examined,  but  as  they 
were  so  badly  struck  as  to  show  only  fragmentary 
portions  of  legends  already  noted,  they  are  dis- 
carded from  the  list. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.       97 

Finds.— Battle,  Wallsop  ?  Watford,  Nottingham, 
Dartford,  Linton  near  Maidstone,  and  Ashby- 
Wolds,  Leicestershire. 

"Weight  and  quality. — Average  22  grains  of  standard 
silver. 

Form  of  letters. — The  modern  C  and  "W  are  now 
quite  frequent.  Tl\  invariably  appears  instead 
of  the  old  D,  which  has  now  finally  disappeared 
from  the  general  English  coinage.  6,  on  at 
least  four  different  dies,  represents  (and  so  may 
possibly  be  an  early  form  of)  the  round  C.  Latin- 
ized money ers'  names  are  common,  and  mono- 
grammic  letters  are  again  plentiful.  An  attempt 
at  the  moneyers'  surname  appears  for  the  first 
time  on  Norman  coins,  upon  one  or  two  examples 
of  this  type. 

As  we  have  seen  (page  87),  William  Fitz  Otho  is  now 
in  office,  and  this  is  the  first  type  for  which  he  is  solely 
responsible,  hence  the  usual  novice's  blunders  and  vari- 
ations in  the  King's  name.1 

The  obverse  of  this  type  is  adapted  from  that  of  the  last, 
and  the  reverse  from  that  of  the  curious  variety,  Fig.  Q, 
described  on  page  75,  each  with  a  difference.  That 
this  is  the  last  type  of  the  reign  is  quite  clear  from  the 

1  The  British  Museum  has  an  ancient  MS.  copy  of  Henry's 
Charter,  addressed  to  Richard  Bishop  of  London,  1108 — 1129, 
andAlberic  de  Vere,  (died  1141),  probably  the  Sheriff,  granting 
to  William  Fitz  Otho  his  office,  and  all  his  lands  and  tenements 
within  London  and  without,  for  performing  thenceforth  the 
offices  which  his  father  Otho  Aurifaber  had.  The  date  of  this 
Charter  is  ascertained  by  the  entry  in  the  1129 — 30  Pipe  Roll, 
mentioned  on  page  87,  for  the  fees  there  debited  were  in 
return  for  it  as  relief  to  the  crown  upon  Fitz  Otho's  succession. 
— Charta  Antique  Lond.,  Y,  17. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  O 


98  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

facts  that  the  Watford,  Nottingham,  Dartford,  and  Linton 
finds,  though  mainly  composed  of  Stephen's  coins,  disclosed 
numerous  examples  of  it,  and  that  the  last  three  named 
contained  no  other  type  of  this  reign.  But  its  position  has 
already  been  demonstrated  under  the  previous  type. 

Of  the  above  finds,  the  Battle,  Wallsop,  Watford,  and 
Nottingham  have  already  been  discussed,  so  a  word  or  two 
upon  the  others  will  complete  the  list.  For  an  account 
of  the  Dartford  or  "  Kent  "  hoard  we  are  again  indebted 
to  Mr.  Rashleigh  in  Num.  Chron.  xiii,  p.  181.  It  was 
discovered  in  1826,  and  contained  about  sixty  coins  all 
of  the  time  of  Stephen,  with  the  exception  of  four  of 
this  type.  The  Linton  (near  Maidstone)  discovery  of 
1883  is  described  by  Mr.  Wakeford  in  the  Numismatic 
Chronicle  for  that  year,  and  comprised  some  180  pennies, 
cut  half-pennies,  and  farthings.  Not  more  than  a  dozen 
were  of  this  type,  and  the  remainder  were  all  of  Stephen's 
reign.  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  has  supplied  particulars  of  the 
Ashby- Wolds  find  of  1788  for  the  purposes  of  these  notes, 
from  an  account  of  its  discovery  in  that  almost  inaccessible 
work,  Nichols'  History  of  Leicestershire.  Nichols  is  not 
very  explicit  when  he  tells  us  that,  of  the  450  silver  coins 
found,  almost  all  were  pennies  of  King  Stephen,  except  a 
few  of  Henry  I,  Henry  II,  and  Henry  III !  Coins  of  the 
latter  reign  are,  of  course,  impossible  in  such  a  find,  and 
a  reference  to  his  plates  only  discloses  this  type  and  two 
types  of  Stephen,  but  perhaps  the  mistake  is  due  to  the 
confusion  existing  in  the  eighteenth  century  as  to  the 
proper  attribution  of  the  coinage  of  the  three  Henrys. 

This  type  was  still  in  circulation  during  the  most 
troubled  years  of  Stephen's  reign,  when  so  many  hoards 
would  be  buried  for  safety,  and  so  to-day  it  is  as  plentiful 
as  all  the  other  types  of  Henry's  reign  put  together. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       99 

Another  cause,  however,  may  be  that,  as  Henry  at  his 
death  left  in  his  treasury  at  Winchester  "  coin  estimated 
at  one  hundred  thousand  pounds,  and  that  of  the  best 
quality"  (Malmesbury),  it  would,  for  some  time  after 
Stephen's  accession,  be  the  chief  medium  of  exchange. 
Coin  in  the  King's  treasury  would,  we  may  assume,  be 
kept  up  to  the  latest  type,  so  that  it  might  always  be 
current  upon  an  emergency. 

That  these  coins  are  neither  pleasing  to  look  at  nor 
easy  to  read  is  not  "William  Fitz  Otho's  fault,  for  his 
design  is  good,  but  is  due  to  the  moneyers'  wretched 
system  of  careless  striking,  or  of  first  striking  them  in 
a  round  collar  and  then  roughly  clipping  them  down  in 
weight  to  the  bare  margin  of  tender.  Refer  for  example 
to  the  specimen  engraved  in  Num.  Chron.  xii.  No.  7,  which 
is  octagon,  or  rather  square  with  the  corners  cut  off,  the 
result  being  that  there  is  not  one  letter  visible  upon  it! 

Although  six  or  seven  hundred  coins  of  this  type  have 
been  noted  or  examined  for  this  work,  the  number  of 
different  mints  upon  them  does  not  exceed  twenty-one. 
Yet  seventy-three  coins  of  type  265  furnish  twenty-two 
mints,  and  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  coins  of  type  262 
thirty  mints.  Therefore  it  is  evident  that  if  more  than 
twenty-one  mints  had  been  coining  between  1131  and 
1135,  we  must  have  had  specimens  of  them  out  of  the 
overwhelming  proportion  of  the  coins  of  this  type. 

Varieties. — None. 

This  completes  the  descriptions  of  the  various  types  of 
Henry  I,  and  it  will  be  noticed  that  Hawkins  259,  260, 
261,  X  and  XII,  are  not  included.  Although  sub-divided 
by  Hawkins  into  five  types,  they  are  really  but  two  and 
their  varieties.  There  are,  however,  others  of  the  same 


100  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

class,  although  some  twenty  coins  in  all  complete  the 
whole  series.  Upon  them  the  letters  "W"  and  SH  are 
not  only  firmly  established,  but  are  almost  invariably  used. 
Hence,  as  we  have  seen,  their  issue  could  not  have  been 
prior  to  type  262  (1128—1131),  when  the  former  letter 
was  introduced,  and  therefore,  as  the  Watford  find  con- 
tained altogether  more  than  eleven  hundred  coins  issued 
between  1128  and  some  time  early  in  Stephen's  reign, 
and  yet  only  contained  the  two  last  types  of  Henry  I,  it 
is  impossible  to  believe  that  any  of  the  coins  of  this  series 
were  then  in  circulation.  Otherwise  a  stray  one  at  least 
would  have  appeared.  Moreover  they  have  never  been 
found  except  with  the  coins  of  Stephen's  reign.  But,  as 
it  is  always  easier  and  more  satisfactory  to  prove  an 
affirmative  than  a  negative,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  say 
here  that  the  appropriation  of  these  coins  will  be  dealt 
with  in  a  general  work  upon  the  Norman  coinage. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

HISTORY   OF    THE   MINTS   AND   THEIR   COINS. 

IT  is  hoped  that,  by  a  few  lines  of  historical  introduction 
to  each  mint,  some  idea  of  the  importance  of  the  towns  in 
those  days  may  be  gleaned,  for  their  condition  now  is  no 
criterion  of  what  it  was  in  the  days  of  Henry  I.  The 
population  of  the  whole  kingdom,  according  to  Sir  Henry 
Ellis,  did  not  then  exceed  two  millions,  and  probably  most 
of  it  was  centered  around  the  principal  towns. 

With  the  exceptions  of  York,  Durham,  and  Carlisle,  all 
the  mints  were  south  of  a  line  drawn  from  Chester  to 
Lincoln,  but  including  those  two  important  cities.  It 
does  not,  however,  follow  that  all  the  principal  cities  and 
towns  were  places  of  mintage,  for  the  privilege  of  coining 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      101 

was  granted  rather  as  a  matter  of  favour  to  the  applicant 
than  with  any  regard  to  the  exigency  of  the  people. 
Thus  the  cities  of  Coventry,  Ely,  Lichfield,  and  Sher- 
borne  had  then  no  money  of  their  own,  and  even  the 
wealthy  abbots  of  Abingdon  never  received  the  favour. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  dates  of  most  of  the  types 
appear  to  overlap  each  other,  but  this  is  not  so  in  reality, 
but  merely  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  exchequer  year 
then  ended  on  September  29th,  and  therefore  most  of  the 
types  were  probably  changed  in  tjie  autumn,  and  so  the 
same  year  is  given  to  two  types.  This  is  borne  out  by 
the  evidence  of  the  Reading  writ,  quoted  on  page  28, 
which  required  the  dies  to  be  delivered  "  within  fifteen 
days  of  the  feast  of  St.  Martin  at  the  furthest."  In  1180 
Henry  II's  new  coinage  was  "  made  current  on  St.  Mar- 
tin's day ; "  but  in  consequence  of  the  Inquisition  of 
Christmas,  1125,  type  265  probably  commenced  in 
January,  1126. 

The  records  of  many  hundred  charters  have  been  con- 
sulted during  the  compilation  of  these  notes,  but  only 
those  will  be  quoted  which  are  requisite  to  fill  in  a  gap  in 
the  history  of  a  mint  or  its  grantee.  For  instance,  if  the 
grantee  of  a  mint  is  presumably  in  England  or  Normandy, 
as  the  case  may  be,  during  a  certain  year,  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  prove  it ;  but  in  the  absence  of  other  evidence  our 
charters  often  supply  this  information. 

Unfortunately,  most  of  the  Norman  charters  are  un- 
dated, but,  as  we  have  seen  under  type  251,  page  47,  in 
the  instance  of  Otho  Fitz  Otto's  grant,  the  date  can 
usually  be  ascertained  from  internal  evidence. 

For  convenience  of  alphabetical  reference  to  the 
moneyers,  the  reverse  legend  is  placed  first  in  the  follow- 
ing lists  of  coins. 


102  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

ATLE. 

"  ATLE "  is  given  in  Ruding's  list  of  Henry's  mints, 
but  as  he  offers  no  further  information  about  it,  and  as 
there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  coin  to  support  the  reading, 
we  may  assume  that  it  must  have  been  taken  from  a  Canter- 
bury coin  of  type  251  or  254,  reading  "CXEE  HTLE,"  for 
ON  ENTLE,  as  the  N  and  A  were  at  that  period  usually 
represented  by  H  or  II,  and  the  arms  of  the  E  in  the 
monogram  1C  were  probably  either  obliterated  on  the 
coin  or  overlooked.  Compare  PI.  II.  No.  1. 


BAENSTAPLE  (DEVONSHIRE). 

BAENASTAPULA,  BEAKDESTAPLA,  BEEDENESTAPLA  ;  Domesday, 
BABNESTAPLE;  Exon.  ditto,  BAEDESTAPLE  and  BAENESTAPLE; 
Pipe  Eoll,  BEBDESTAPLA  ;  Charters,  BARNESTAPLA,  etc. ; 
Tower  Records,  Ed.  I.,  BEEDSTAPLE;  Colloquially,  BAEUM. 

The  origin  of  Barnstaple  is  unknown,  but  it  has  been 
suggested  that  its  familiar  name  Barum  may,like  that  of  Old 
Sarum,  have  survived  to  us  from  the  days  of  the  Romans. 
Its  position  as  the  maritime  port  of  North  Devon  for  the 
wool  and  mineral  products  of  the  surrounding  country 
must  have  rendered  it  a  thriving  market,  or  staple,  in 
early  Saxon  times,  and  that  it  was  a  place  of  some  im- 
portance in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century,  is  supported 
by  an  ancient  tradition  that  Athelstan  drove  the  Danes 
over  the  Tamar,  and  abode  in  his  palace  at  Barnstaple. 
This  is  probably  true,  as  it  would  constitute  the  town  a 
royal  burg,  and  explains  the  passage  in  Domesday,  "  King 
Edward  (the  Confessor)  had  the  burg  of  Barnstaple."  The 
mound  of  the  castle,  too,  dates  from  at  least  that  century. 
About  the  same  time  the  episcopal  See  of  Devon  was  dis- 
sociated from  that  of  Sherborne,  and  for  a  short  period, 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  1.       103 

prior  to  its  translation  to  Crediton,  located  at  Bishops 
Tawton,  two  miles  from  the  gates  of  Barnstaple. 

1067-8.  The  Burg  suffered  in  the  Devonshire  rising,  and 
23  houses  seem  to  have  been  laid  waste.  William 
appointed  Judhel  de  Totnes  castellan,  and  gave  him 
the  Honour  of  Barnstaple,  including  Totness  and 
Lydford.  He  founded  the  Norman  castle. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  King  Edward's  time,  the 
King  had  the  burg.  Now  there  are  40  burgesses 
within  and  9  without  who  pay  40s.  to  the  King  and 
20s.  to  the  1  ishop  of  Coutances.  There  are  28  houses 
laid  waste  since  the  King  (William  I)  came  into 
England.  The  King  has  the  burg ;  the  Bishop  ten 
burgesses  paying  45  pence  ;  and  Baldwin  the  Sheriff 
has  seven  burgesses.  The  mill  renders  20s.,  of 
which  the  Bishop  has  a  share.  The  mint  is  not 
mentioned. 

William  II  gave  the  Honour  of  Barnstaple  to  Roger  de 
Novant. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Wido  de  Novant,  presumably 
the  heir  of  Roger  de  Novant,  is  paying  quittance  for 
a  [?  confirmation]  grant  of  the  fair  at  Totness  and  cer- 
tain fees  in  respect  of  a  claim  against  his  lands  brought 
by  Johell  Fitz  Nigel,  probably  the  grandson  of  Judhel. 

It  is  to  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence,  in  the  Numismatic 
Chronicle,  1897,  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  correct 
appropriation  of  certain  coins  of  a  mint  commencing 
BARD  or  BEARD  to  this  town. 

They  comprise  the  reigns  of  Ethelred  II,  Canute, 
Harold  I,  Edward  the  Confessor,  William  I — II,  and 
Henry  I. 

At  some  date  in  the  Saxon  period  the  burgesses  of 
Barnstaple,  Totness,  and  Lydford,  must  have  obtained  a 
charter  of  privileges  in  return  for  the  supply  of  a  ship  or 
contribution  to  an  expedition  of  the  King  when  required, 
for  so  it  is  elsewhere  recorded  in  Domesday.  Messrs. 
Stevenson  and  Napier,  too,  confirm  this  by  the  evidence  of 
the  burg-mtan  at  Beardastapol  being  mentioned  in  1018 
(see  "  The  Crawford  Charters  ").  Thus  we  may  infer  that 


104  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

up  to  the  date  of  the  Conquest  Barnstaple  was  a  royal 
burg,  fanned  to  the  burgesses,  upon  certain  customs  and 
a  rent  of  40s.  to  the  King,  and  20s.,  the  "  third  penny  " 
of  the  town,  to  the  Bishop  of  Coutances. 

The  fact  that  Barnstaple,  Totness,  and  Lydford  were 
rated  together  to  contribute  the  ship,  coupled  with  the 
coincidence  that  the  mints  of  Barnstaple,  Totness,  and 
Lydford  all  commence  in  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  use 
the  same  types  and  interchange  their  moneyers,  and  sup- 
ported by  the  evidence  that  Barnstaple  had  already  its 
burg-icitan  within  two  years  of  that  king's  death,  strongly 
suggests  that  charters  of  privileges  had  been  granted  to 
the  three  towns  by  Ethelred  II.  They  evidently  included 
the  right  of  coinage  to  each,  as  was  the  case  in  the  very 
similar  instances  of  those  seaports  which  were  subsequently 
known  as  the  Cinque  Ports ;  and  these  conditions  seem  to 
have  continued  until  the  time  of  the  Conquest. 

William  did  not  confirm  these  charters,  as  it  is  evident 
from  Domesday  that  he  granted  the  tertius  denarius  of 
the  burg  of  Barnstaple  to  Geoffrey  de  Mowbray,  Bishop 
of  Coutances  (see  pages  119-123).  This  would  include 
the  lordship  of  the  manor  and  the  mint.  But  although 
the  Bishop  nominally  retained  the  tertius  denarius,  he 
seems  to  have  released  his  lordship  in  favour  of  one  of 
his  knights,  for  King  William  granted  the  Honour  of 
Barnstaple,  including  Totness  and  Lydford,  to  Judhel,  or 
Joel,  Fitz  Alured  of  Totness,  and  so  the  three  mints  fell 
under  one  hand.  Hence  it  was  not  likely  that  Judhel  would 
continue  the  expense  of  three  so  near  together  when  the 
supply  of  one  was  sufficient.  He  therefore  discontinued 
that  of  Lydford  altogether,  but  coined  intermittently  at 
either  Barnstaple  or  Totness,  but  never  contemporaneously 
at  both  places. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       105 

Judhel  is  said  to  have  been,  banished  by  Rufus  for 
some  unrecorded  offence,  but  he  would,  no  doubt,  be 
concerned  in  his  lord,  Geoffrey  de  Mowbray's,  rebellion  of 
1088.  The  head  of  Judhel's  house  was  Geoffrey  de 
Mayenne,  who  also,  in  1088,  revolted  against  Rufus  in 
Normandy  ;  this  probably  led  to  Judhel's  fall. 

William  II  then  granted  the  Honour  to  Roger  de 
Novant ;  who,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  ever  exer- 
cised the  privilege  of  coining  here.  From  the  Pipe  Roll 
one  gathers  that  he  had  died  a  few  years  before  1129-30, 
and  for  reasons"  presently  given  the  date  must  have  been 
about  1123. 

Henry  I  is  always  credited  with  having  incorporated 
Barnstaple,  but  what  he  did  was  to  restore  its  Saxon 
privileges.  The  evidence  of  his  charter  to  the  burgesses 
is  to  be  gleaned  from  one  of  Henry  II,  in  which  the  King 
confirms  to  the  burgesses 

"  all  the  rights  and  customs  which  they  had  in  the  time  of  my 
grandfather,  King  Henry,  I  having  removed  all  the  bad  customs 
after  my  grandfather  there  arisen.  Know  ye  that  they  have  the 
customs  of  London,  and  so  testify  before  me  that  they  and  the 
barons  of  London  so  freely,  honourably,  and  justly  have  the 
same  as  ever  they  better  had  in  the  time  of  my  grandfather." 

The  customs  of  London  will  be  referred  to  under  that 
mint,  but  the  reference  to  them  riot  only  shows  that 
Henry  I  had  granted  a  charter  to  Barnstaple  conferring 
the  greatest  civic  rights  of  the  age  upon  its  burgesses, 
but  that  the  charter  to  Barnstaple  must  have  been  subse- 
quent to  the  death  of  Roger  de  Novant,  for  Henry  could 
not  grant  what  was  Roger  de  Novant's  during  his  life. 
Thus  the  Barnstaple  charter  must  have  been  dated 
after,  say,  1123. 

The  1130  Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  Wido  de  Nunant 
(Novant),  no  doubt  as  heir  to  Roger,  paid  £10  for  a 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  P 


106  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

judgment  in  his  favour  as  to  the  land  which  Johell  Fitz 
Nigel  claimed  against  him  and  ten  marks  of  silver  for  a 
(confirmation)  grant  of  the  fair  at  Totness.  Hence  we 
know  that  Roger  de  Novant  was  then  dead  and  that  some 
time  at  least  had  elapsed  since  his  death.  These  entries 
must  have  referred  to  Totness  alone,  for  the  King  himself 
had  resumed  possession  of  Barnstaple,  as,  by  a  charter 
granted  at  Perriers  [in  1125],  he  gave  the  mill  and  its 
tolls,  with  other  property  at  Barnstaple,  to  the  Priory. 

As  type  265  (1126-1128)  now  appears  from  the  Barn- 
staple  mint,  we  may  very  i'airly  conclude  that  the  charter 
to  the  Priory,  the  charter  to  Wido  de  Novant,  and  the 
charter  to  the  burgesses  of  Barnstaple  were  all  granted 
after  the  death  of  Roger  de  Novant  and  in  1125,  and  that 
the  burgesses  immediately  availed  themselves  of  their 
ancient  privilege  of  a  mint. 

The  burgesses,  however,  evidently  lost  their  rights  at 
some  time  before  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  for  this  is  im- 
plied by  his  charter  and  by  the  fact  that  the  Roll  of 
1158  records  that  William  de  Braose  paid  to  the  exchequer 
1,000  marks  of  silver  for  his  part  of  the  Honour  of 
Barnstaple.  William  de  Braose  in  a  charter  calls  himself 
"  grandson  of  Joel " — i.e.  Joel  Fitz  Nigel,  not  Joel  de 
Totness,  as  hitherto  supposed,  for  too  many  years  intervene 
between  the  latter  and  de  Braose.  The  claim  of  Joel 
Fitz  Nigel,  referred  to  in  the  1130  Roll,  probably  explains 
the  reason  why  the  coinage  of  the  burgesses  ceased  in 
1128  as  suddenly  as  it  had  commenced.  His  unusual 
name  suggests  a  relationship  to  Joel  de  Totness,  and  his 
name  appears  as  Joel  de  Barnstaple  as  early  as  in  the 
Foundation  charter  of  Plympton  Priory,  about  August, 
1123.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  same  charter  Wido  is 
described  as  de  Totness.  Hence  we  may  infer  that  Joel 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.        107 

Fitz  Nigel  claimed  the  whole  Honour  of  Barnstaple, 
including  Totness  and  Lydford,  and  that  prior  to  the  date 
of  the  Pipe  Roll,  say,  in  1128,  it  was  partitioned  between 
himself  and  Wido,  as  heir  of  Roger  de  Novant ;  he  receiv- 
ing Barnstaple,  and  thus  causing  the  revocation  of  the 
charter  to  the  burgesses,  and  Wido  retaining  his  grant  of 
Totness  as  is  evidenced  by  the  Roll.  This  also  explains 
the  reason  why  William  de  Braose,  as  heir  to  Fitz  Nigel, 
in  1158  claimed  only  a  part  of  the  Honour  which  had 
formerly  included  Totness,  and  why  there  is  no  return  for 
Barnstaple  in  the  1130  Roll. 

COIN. 
•frOTER  ON  BEEDESTA  *fiENRIEVS  265 

British  Museum;  from  the  Montagu  Sale,  1897, 
and  the  Hugh  Howard  Collection,  1874  (but 
said  to  have  been  formed  at  the  commence- 
ment of  "the  last  century  ").  OTER  was 
probably  one  of  the  family  of  that  name 
who  were  moneyers  of  Dorchester. 


BATH  (SOMERSETSHIKE). 

BATHAN,  BATHA,  BATHONIA,  BADUNUM  ;  Early  Saxon,  AKEMAN- 
CEASTEE  ;  Domesday,  BADE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  BADA. 

That  the  early  Britons  held  a  stronghold  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Bath  is  certain,  but  its  mineral  springs  would 
be  a  far  greater  attraction  to  the  Roman  conquerors  than 
to  them,  and  therefore  its  actual  site  was  probably  first 
occupied  by  the  latter.  In  like  manner  they  founded 
Buxton  and  Ilkley.  The  Roman  fortifications  of  Bath 
no  doubt  remained  much  as  their  builders  left  them,  until 
in  577  the  Saxons  stormed  the  city  after  the  battle  of 


108 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


Deorham.  After  the  introduction  of  Christianity  a  nun- 
nery was  established  here  in  the  seventh  century,  which 
was,  however,  replaced,  a  hundred  years  later,  by  a  college 
of  secular  canons,  and  at  the  close  of  the  eighth  century 
Offa,  King  of  Mercia,  built,  or  rebuilt,  the  Church  of  St. 
Peter. 

But  it  is  to  Alfred  and  the  men  of  Somersetshire,  after 
the  expulsion  of  the  Danes  from  the  county,  that  the 
revival  of  the  importance  of  the  city  is  due.  That  king 
seems  to  have  fortified  it  and  placed  a  governor  here,  for 
under  906  we  have  the  curious  passage  in  the  Saxon 
Chronicle,  "  In  this  year  died  Alfred,  who  was  governor 
of  Bath."  Here,  in  973,  Edgar  was  crowned  in  the 
Church  of  St.  Peter,  and  he  greatly  enriched  the  town 
and  monastery.  But  in  1013  Bath  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  Sweyn  the  Dane ;  nevertheless  it  was  a  thriving  burg 
in  the  time  of  the  Confessor. 

The  description  of  Bath  in  the  reigns  of  Henry  I  and 
Stephen,  from  the  Gesta  Stephani,  is  as  follows :  — 

"  There  is  a  city,  six  miles  from  Bristol,  where  the  hot 
springs,  circulating  in  channels  beneath  the  surface,  are  con- 
ducted by  channels  artificially  constructed  and  are  collected 
into  an  arched  reservoir,  to  supply  the  warm  baths  (the  Roman 
baths)  which  stand  in  the  middle  of  the  place,  most  delightful  to 
see  and  beneficial  to  health.  This  city  is  called  Batta,  th'e 
name  being  derived  from  a  word  in  the  English  tongue  which 
signified  bath  ;  because  infirm  people  resort  to  it  from  all  parts 
of  England  for  the  purpose  of  bathing  in  these  salubrious 
waters  ;  and  persons  in  health  also  assemble  there  to  see  the 
curious  bubbling  up  of  the  warm  springs,  and  to  use  the  baths." 
(Forester.) 

This  might  almost  be  a  record  of  the  days  of  the  Regent. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of  King  Edward  the 
King  held  Bath.  Now  the  burg  contains  178  bur- 
gesses, of  whom  64,  returning  £4,  hold  under  the  King, 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.       109 

90  returning  60  shillings,  under  various  feudatories  of 
the  crown,  and  24  under  the  Abbot  of  St.  Peter's. 
Six  houses  are  laid  waste  and  one  destroyed.  The 
King  has  the  burg  and  the  mint  renders  100  shillings. 

1088.  "  Bath,  a  city  of  the  King's,"  was  plundered  and 
burnt  by  Robert  de  Mowbray.  (Florence.) 

1088-90.  John  de  Villula  translated  the  seat  of  the 
Bishopric  of  Wells  to  Bath  and  founded  the  Norman 
Cathedral,  of  which  however  there  is  hardly  a  trace 
remaining. 

1090  &  97.  William  II  by  charters  granted  "to  God  and 
the  Church  of  St.  Peter  in  Bath  and  to  John  the  Bishop, 
and  to  his  successors,  all  the  City  of  Bath  for  the  aug- 
mentation of  the  revenue  of  the  see ;  for  the  good  of 
the  soul  of  his  father  King  William  I  and  the  souls  of 
his  mother,  of  himself  and  of  his  ancestors  and  suc- 
cessors. Together  with  the  mint  and  other  privileges." 
Florence  of  Worcester  with  unintentional  cynicism 
explains  that  the  Bishop  bought  the  whole  city  for 
£500. 

1101.  Henry  I  confirms  the  above  charters. 

1102.  Henry  by  charter  "  gives  and  confirms  the  city 
itself  and  everything  appertaining  to  the  firma  of  the 
said  city  together  with  the  mint,  &c.,"  to  John  the 
Bishop. 

1106.     Bishop  John,  by  charter,  transfers  the  city  and  its 

privileges  to  the  Church  of  St.  Peter. 
1106.     Easter.   Henry  holds  his  court  here.    (Sax.  Chron.) 

1122.  December  29.    Death  of  Bishop  John.    (Florence.) 

1123.  August  26.     Geoffrey  the  Queen's  Chancellor  (or 
chaplain  according  to  some  authorities)  consecrated 
Bishop  of  Bath. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Somersetshire  is  omitted  from  the 
Roll.  The  learned  Adelardus  of  Bath  is  mentioned. 
Geoffrey  the  Chancellor  owes  £3,006  13s.  4d.  for  the 
Great  Seal  —  for  his  appointment  —  and  is  allowed 
£10  15s.  Od.  for  43  days'  absence  from  the  Exchequer. 
Geoffrey  the  Chancellor,  who  was  appointed  Bishop 
of  Durham, -1133,  was  formerly  believed  to  have  been 
the  Bishop  of  Bath,  but 

1134.  August  16.  "  Geoffrey,  Bishop  of  Bath,  died  on  the 
17th  of  the  calends  of  September  ;  after  some  interval 
he  was  succeeded  by  a  monk  (of  Lewes)  named 
Robert,  a  Fleming  by  descent,  but  born  in  England." 
(Florence.) 


110  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

The  name  of  Bath  first  appears  upon  our  coins  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Alfred,  arid  continues  through- 
out all  the  Saxon  reigns  with  the  exceptions  of  those  of 
Eadmund  and  Harold  II.  It  may,  however,  be  noticed 
here  that  although  the  name  of  a  mint  may  not  occur  upon 
coins  of  the  Saxon  kings  prior  to  Ethelred  II,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  was  dormant,  as  certain  types  bear  the  names 
of  the  moneyers  only.  For  instance,  a  Bath  moneyer's 
name  appears  upon  one  of  these  types  of  Eadmund. 

From  before  the  accession  of  William  I  to,  and  inclu- 
sive of,  the  date  of  Domesday — 1086 — it  is  quite  clear 
that  Bath  was  "  a  city  of  the  King's,"  and  that  in  1086  at 
least  there  was  a  royal  mint  here  in  operation.  Its 
vicinity  to  the  prolific  mints  of  Bristol  and  Gloucester — 
the  latter  of  which  in  Domesday  paid  a  rent  of  £20  to  the 
King — must  have  affected  its  output,  and  so  in  late  Saxon 
times  we  find  only  two  moneyers'  names  at  a  time  upon 
its  coins.  This  number  was  continued  in  the  reign  of 
William  I,  and  the  mint  paid  a  rent  of  only  £5  to  the 
King. 

But  in  Robert  de  Mowbray's  rising  of  1088  the  city 
was  destroyed,  and  from  that  date  the  royal  mint  of  Bath 
ceases  for  ever.  Therefore  all  the  types  bearing  the 
King's  name  WILLIAM  that  we  have  of  this  mint  must 
have  been  struck  prior  to  that  time. 

In  1090  John  de  Villula  commenced  rebuilding  the 
city,  choosing  it  for  his  episcopal  seat  in  preference  to 
Wells.  According  to  Domesday  the  Bishops  of  Wells 
held  that  town — by  ancient  charter — and  so  there  was  a 
precedent  for  the  purchase  or  grant  of  Bath.  In  1097 
the  whole  city  is  granted  to  Bishop  John  and  his  suc- 
cessors, and  though  the  mint  is  mentioned,  it  is  only 
included  in  the  general  words  of  the  charter  conveying 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.       Ill 

all  the  King's  rights  and  privileges  within  the  city,  and 
the  mere  grant  of  the  city  alone  would  have  been  just  as 
effective,  whether  the  mint  was  specially  named  or  not. 

As  was  necessary,  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
period,  Henry  I  confirmed  and  extended  this  charter — 
so  likewise  did  King  Stephen  to  the  then  bishop — but  we 
have  ample  evidence  that  John  de  Villula  never  exercised 
his  privilege  of  coining  during  the  whole  of  his  life,  for 
otherwise,  from  a  tenure  of  thirty  years,  some  at  least  of 
his  coins  must  have  survived  to  us.  He  had  no  mint  at 
Wells,  and  when  he  came  to  Bath  the  ruined  city  offered 
little  temptation  for  the  undertaking ;  in  fact,  with  the 
exception  of  the  short  revival  about  to  be  mentioned, 
the  mint  was  already  an  office  of  the  past.  Moreover, 
his  own  charter  of  1106  transferring  his  personal  rights 
under  the  charters  to  his  Church  suggests  that,  thoughout, 
he  viewed  himself  in  the  light  of  a  mere  spiritual  trustee. 

Bishop  John  died  at  the  close  of  1122,  and  in  August, 
1123,  his  successor  Geoffrey  was  installed.  A  confirma- 
tion charter  must  follow — not  precede — the  induction  of 
a  bishop,  and  as  Henry  was  then  in  Normandy,  it  would, 
in  this  instance,  have  to  await  his  return  in  September, 
1126,  for  such  charters  appear  usually,  if  not  always,  to 
have  been  granted  at  the  English  courts.  Its  actual 
date  was  probably  either  upon  the  occasion  when  "  all  the 
bishops  and  nobles  "  swore  fealty  to  Matilda  the  Empress 
at  the  London  court  on  January  1st,  1127  (Florence),  or 
when  Bishop  Geoffrey  is  specially  mentioned  as  attending 
the  May  court  at  Westminster  in  the  same  year. 

Bishop  Geoffrey  took  an  active  part  in  political  life, 
and  he  at  once,  after  receiving  his  confirmation  charter, 
reopened  the  mint,  for  type  265  (1126-1128)  is  struck  at 
Bath.  This  is  followed  by  the  next  in  succession,  262 


112 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


(1128-1131),  and,  according  to  a  catalogue  reading,  by 
255  (1131-1135),  when  upon  the  Bishop's  death  in  1134 
and  probably  because  it  was  found  to  be  unprofitable,  the 
mint  of  Bath  was  closed  for  ever.  This  revival,  too,  was 
but  a  small  coinage,  for  we  find  the  number  of  moneyers 
at  a  time  now  reduced  to  one.  A  reduction  in  the 
number  of  moneyers  seems  always  to  have  followed  the 
conversion  of  a  royal  into  a  private  mint. 

When  a  mint  was  newly  established,  or  revived  after 
being  long  dormant,  it  seems  to  have  been  necessary  and 
customary  to  temporarily  borrow  a  moneyer  from  elsewhere 
to  organize  the  new  work,  for,  as  will  be  noticed  in  other 
cases — that  of  Carlisle,  for  instance — the  moneyer  whose 
name  appears  on  the  first  type  rarely  issues  the  second. 
It  is  so  here,  for  PINTEELEDE,  who  struck  type  265, 
does  not  issue  262.  Perhaps  Bishop  Geoffrey  borrowed 
him  from  his  archbishop's  mint,  as  he  most  naturally 
would,  when  he  met  the  Primate  at  the  Synod  of  May, 
1127,  for  we  find  PINIEDE1— probably  contracted  from 
PIN[TER]LEDEI — coining  at  Canterbury  before  this  type 
— 265 — and  immediately  after  it,  but  not  during  its  issue. 
Upon  this  system  of  introducing  moneyers  to  revive  a 
dormant  coinage,  see  particularly  under  Gloucester. 


COINS. 


•frOSBERN:  ON  BAD: 
Watford  find. 

.  . . BERN    .  .    BA . 
Watford  find. 


262 


EVS  R        262 


.J.PINTERLEDE  :  ON  •  BAD  A  •     ^.IiENRIEVS:     265 

British  Museum  ;  Fig.  U.  From  the  Durrant 
Sale,  1847,  £2  11s.  Od.  As  to  the  moneyer, 
see  above. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.       113 

^.PINTERLED  :  ON  •  BAD  A      .frfiENKICVS  E  :       265 
Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  20. 

The  Tyssen  Catalogue,  1802,  contains  2  coins  of      .    265 

At  the  Haines  Sale,  1878,  a  coin  of  255  (1131 
— 1135)  was  described  as  "probably  minted 
at  Bath."  If  this  is  correct  the  type  would 
be  issued  by  Bishop  Geoffrey,  between  1131 
and  his  death  in  1134 — probably  early  in 
the  limit. 


BEDFORD. 

BEDANFOED,  BEDCANFORD,  BEDICANFORD,  BEDEFOEDA  ;  Pipe  Roll, 
BEDEFOBD. 

Although  prehistoric  remains  abound  in  the  neighbour- 
hood, we  know  little  or  nothing  of  the  early  history  of 
Bedford  until  the  Saxon  Chronicle  records  a  victory  of 
Cuthvulf  over  the  Britons  at  this  place  in  the  year  571. 
Offa,  King  of  Mercia,  is  said  to  have  been  buried  here, 
but  the  town  does  not  seem  to  have  attained  its  import- 
ance until — 

In  919  "  King  Edward — the  Elder — went  with  his  forces  to 
Bedford  and  gained  the  town — from  the  Danes — and  almost  all 
the  townsmen  who  formerly  dwelt  there  submitted  to  him.  He 
stayed  there  four  weeks,  and  commanded  the  town  to  be  built 
on  the  south  side  of  the  river  before  he  went  thence."  (Sax. 
Chron.) 

This  rather  implies  that  the  Danes  had  destroyed  the 
old  town,  and  in  1010  they  again  "  came  to  Bedford, 
ever  burning  as  they  went."  Nor  were  its  misfortunes 
confined  to  Saxon  times,  for,  as  Camden  says,  "  not  one 
civil  commotion  arose  in  the  kingdom  but  what  had  a 
blow  at  the  castle  of  Bedford." 

William  I  appointed   Hugh   de   Beauchamp  castellan  of 

Bedford. 
1086.      Domesday  notes. — In  the  Confessor's  time  and 

now  the  burg  contributed  for  half  the  Hundred  in 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  Q 


114  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

expeditions  and  ships  (to  the  King's  forces).  The 
land  of  the  town  never  paid  land  tax,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one  hide  which  lay  in  tithe  to  the  Church  of 
St.  Paul. 

William  II  granted,  or  confirmed,  the  Honour  of  Bedford 
to  Payne,  son  of  Hugh  de  Beauchamp. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — The  burg  paid  £4  8s.  Od.  auxi- 
lium.  Simon  de  Beauchamp  accounts  for  £102  16s.  8d. 
which  is  being  paid  by  instalments  for  the  security  of 
his  Honour  [of  Bedford]  "quern  non  habuit  ad 
rectum."  ["  hois  "  is  the  contraction  used  in  the  Roll 
for  both  Honoris  and  hominis,  but  the  payment  is  far 
too  large  a  sum  to  admit  of  the  latter  construction. 
Pro  recto  or  ad  rectum  occurs  thirty  or  forty  times  in 
the  Roll,  and  yet  it  is  invariably  used  in  relation  to 
land  alone.  See  p.  157.] 

Although  the  name  of  this  mint  first  appears  on  coins 
of  Eadwig,  there  is,  as  Mr.  Grueber  points  out  in  the 
Brit.  Mus.  Cat.,  evidence,  by  a  comparison  of  its 
moneyers  with  those  of  Eadred,  that  it  had  been  in  opera- 
tion for  some  time  at  least  previous  to  this  reign.  The 
coinage  was  continued  under  each  successive  King  until 
the  Norman  Conquest,  but  the  number  of  moneyers  in 
office  at  a  time  seems  to  have  been  gradually  reduced 
from  three  or  four  to  two. 

Although  William  I  appointed  Hugh  de  Beauchamp 
castellan,  and  subsequently  gave  him  the  Honour  and 
barony  of  Bedford  also,  the  burg  seems  to  have  been 
farmed  to  the  burgesses  at  the  date  of  Domesday.  The 
Gesta  tells  us  that  Milo  de  Beauchamp,  grandson  of 
Hugh,  in  1138  claimed  Bedford  "  by  hereditary  right," 
and  as  he  was  only  nephew  to  Payne,  who  received  a 
grant  of  the  Honour  from  Rufus,  this  term  could  not 
apply  to  the  second  grant,  for  a  title  could  no  more 
descend  by  right  to  a  nephew  then  than  it  can  now. 

As  the  mint  is  not  mentioned  in  Domesday,  either 
under  the  Confessor  or  under  William,  its  privileges  were 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY   I.      115 

no  doubt  vested  in  the  Saxon  earls  of  Mercia  during  the 
former  reign,  and  in  Hugh  de  Beauchamp  under 
William  I. 

Hugh  seems  to  have  died  during  the  reign  of 
William  II,  leaving  three  sons,  Robert,  Payne,  and 
Simon.  Hence  the  grant  of  the  Honour  of  Bedford  to 
Payne  was  the  usual  and  necessary  charter  of  confirma- 
tion upon  his  succession. 

Although  Payne  succeeded  to  the  English  possessions, 
he  was  probably  the  second  son,  for  in  nearly  all  cases 
where  the  barons  held  estates  both  in  England  and  Nor- 
mandy, the  eldest  son  took  those  in  the  latter  country. 
The  succession  to  the  crown  of  England  even,  then  fol- 
lowed this  custom. 

Robert  de  Beauchamp,  Viscount  of  Arques,  was  there- 
fore probably  the  eldest  son,  and  he  plays  a  somewhat 
prominent  part  in  the  history  of  Normandy  in  the  earlier 
half  of  Henry's  reign.  Perhaps  Payne  was  assisting  him 
and  resident  in  Normandy,  for  English  historians  and  char- 
ters are  silent  as  to  his  movements,  and  we  have  no  Bedford 
coins  which  can  be  assigned  to  his  tenure  of  the  Honour. 

Payne  must  have  died  before  1129,  or  he  would  cer- 
tainly have  appeared  in  the  1130  Roll,  and  from  it  we 
gather  some  light  upon  the  succession.  Simon,  the  third 
son  of  Hugh,  is  owing  large  fees,  now  standing  at 
£102  16s.  8d.,  of  which  this  year  he  pays  £33  6s.  8d., 
"pro  plegio  honoris  sui  quern  non  habuit  ad  rectum."  From 
this  it  would  appear  that  he  had  a  "  breve  de  recto  "  from 
the  King,  which  was  a  writ  of  "  right  close "  in  cases 
where  lands  were  held  by  charter,  but  their  title  disputed. 

Payne  left  no  issue,  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  and  as 
this  payment  is  not  entered  under  the  "  Nova  placita  " 
portion  of  the  Roll,  and  is  being  reduced  by  instalments, 


116  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

we  may  presume  that  he  died  two  or  three  years  before 
1129.  And  so,  as  we  have  coins  of  type  265  (1126- 
1128),  we  may  infer  that  the  writ  was  issued  during  that 
period,  and  the  barony  only  then  vested  in  Simon. 

The  dispute  would  be  as  to  whether  Milo  de  Beau- 
champ,  as  eldest  son  of  Robert  the  Viscount,  who  is  now 
dead,  would  succeed  to  the  English  estates,  or  Simon,  the 
younger  brother  of  Payne.  This  seems  proved  to  have 
been  the  family  feud,  because,  on  the  death  of  Simon  a  few 
years  afterwards,  when  King  Stephen  bestowed  Bedford 
on  Hugh  Beaumont  "  the  Poor,"  as  husband  of  Simon's 
only  child,  Milo  and  his  brothers,  "  the  sons  of  Robert  de 
Beauchamp,"  took  arms  against  him,  and  defended  the 
castle  during  a  lengthy  siege  (see  Orderic  and  the  Gesta). 

The  entry  in  the  Roll  by  no  means  proves  Simon  to 
have  been  in  England  in  1129-1130,  and,  as  he  was 
absent  from  the  great  council  of  Northampton  in  1131, 
and  as  we  have  no  Bedford  coins  other  than  of  type  265, 
the  presumption  is  that  he,  like  his  brother,  spent  his  life 
abroad  ;  with  the  exception,  however,  of  the  occasion  of 
his  application  for  the  writ  of  confirmation  in  his  Honour. 
He  would  then  return  to  take  seizin  of  his  possessions  and 
no  doubt  issued  type  265  in  1126-8.  His  name,  too, 
seems  only  to  occur  in  one  English  charter,  which  is  also 
of  about  that  date. 

After  so  long  a  dormancy,  it  was  necessary  to  obtain  a 
moneyer  from  another  mint  to  revive  the  art  of  coinage 
at  Bedford,  and  in  1126-1128  Simon  seems  to  have  tem- 
porarily borrowed  EDEIEVS  from  Bristol.  He  would 
naturally  look  to  the  west  for  a  moneyer,  as  his  cousin, 
Walter  de  Beauchamp,  was  castellan  of  Worcester,  and 
held  large  possessions  in  Gloucestershire.  He  also  claimed 
the  constableship  of  that  city. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       117 

With  the  exception  of  a  coinage  of  Milo  de  Beauchamp 
during  his  revolt  against  Stephen  in  1138,  the  mint  of 
Bedford  closes  entirely  with  type  265  of  Henry  I. 

COINS. 

*EDR[IEVS]  ON  BEDEF  :         *  [I\ENBIE]VS  B:    265 
British  Museum.     The  reading  of  the  mint  is 
quite  clear,  so  it  cannot  be  a  Hereford  coin. 
As  to  the  moneyer,  see  above. 

•fr ON  BE  .  EFOR  -frrxENRIEV  .  .         265 

Eodleian  Library.  Mr.  Nicholson  and  Mr. 
Oman  have  contributed  the  readings  of  the 
Bodleian  coins. 

The  coin  of  type  267,  engraved  Euding,  Sup., 
ii.,  1,  6,  queried  by  Hawkins  to  this  mint, 
is  of  Thetford. 


BISES. 

"BISES"  is  given  in  Ruding's  list  of  mints.  It  is 
taken  from  the  coin,  type  253,  engraved  Snelling,  i.  15, 
and  Ruding,  Sup.,  i.  7,  reading,  ȣ  HENRI  REX,  rev., 
•frOSBR  :  ON  BISES.  But  both  engravings  are  copied 
from  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.  11.  As  this  plate  was  pre- 
pared as  early  as  1756,  much  reliance  cannot  be  placed 
upon  the  accuracy  of  the  engraver's  reading,  for  in  those 
days  the  picture  was  the  primary  object,  the  coin  the  second. 
Therefore  any  blank  on  the  latter  was  guessed,  or  the 
visible  legend  spread  over  it,  until  the  twenty-six  coins 
of  Henry  I  on  the  plate  disclose  no  missing  letter — an 
impossible  result.  (See  also  the  similar  instance  of  "  RIE.") 
It  is  true  that  the  notorious  John  White  was  concerned 
in  supplying  the  specimens  for  Withy's  plates,  and  so  the 
authenticity  of  the  coins  illustrated  has  always  been 
questioned.  But  it  is  only  just  to  point  out  that  it  is 


118  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

merely  upon  certain  fabricated  pennies  of  Richard  I  that 
his  character  fell,  and  that  not  fairly,  for  over  them,  in 
large  type,  was  printed,  "  Imaginary  coins  of  Richard  the 
First."  It  was  Snelling  and  Ruding,  therefore,  who 
blundered  in  republishing  these  imaginary  specimens  as 
genuine  ones.  This  at  least  can  be  said,  so  far  as  Henry  I 
and  Stephen's  coins  are  concerned,  Withy's  plates  will 
bear  the  closest  scrutiny  of  money er  and  mint,  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  question  a  single  example,  nor  have  we 
many  better  engravings  to-day. 

The  BISES  coin  seems  to  have  been  last  heard  of  at  the 
Phare  Sale  in  1834,  when  it  was  assigned  to  Bicester. 
But  the  simple  explanation  of  it  must  be  either  that  the 
E  in  B[E]ISES  (Bristol)  was  a  blank,  and  so  left  out  by 
the  engraver  of  the  plate ;  or,  and  this  is  more  pro- 
bable in  view  of  the  Phare  Catalogue,  the  E  was  omitted 
upon  the  die  of  the  coin,  just  as  the  second  letter  is  often 
dropped  at  this  period  in  ENTN  (Canterbury),  DFN 
(Dover),  60PE  (Gloucester),  HSTIE  (Hastings),  6PIE 
(Ipswich),  &c.  A  precisely  similar  instance  occurs  in  a 
coin  of  the  next  reign,  reading,  "  ^.AEEFITl  :  ON  BIS." 
Oddly  enough  both  coins  have  the  colon  similarly  placed 
before  ON  only,  and  in  the  latter  case  the  usual  second 
colon  and  the  E  are  obviously  omitted  for  want  of  space 
upon  the  coin. 

The  BISES  coin  must  therefore  be  assigned  to  Bristol. 


BRISTOL. 

BRICGSTOW,     BEICSTOWE,     BRISTOW,     BRESTOW  ;     Domesday, 
BRISTOV  ;  Charters,  BRISTOLL,  BRISTOWA. 

BRISTOL  seems  to  have  been  a  Roman  port  in  the  third 
century,  and  Nennius  calls  it  one  of  the  principal  cities  of 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       119 

the  later  Britons  under  the  name  of  Cair-Britoc.  It  was 
the  Brig-stow  or  "  place  of  bridge  "  of  the  Saxons,  and 
probably  fell  into  their  hands  in  577,  when  they  conquered 
Gloucester,  Cirencester,  and  Bath.  Perhaps  they  de- 
stroyed it  in  that  year,  as  we  hear  little  if  anything  of  its 
history  until  the  reign  of  the  Confessor,  when  the  Saxon 
Chronicle  records  that  Earl  Harold  in  1052  sailed  thence, 
a  fugitive,  to  Ireland.  In  1063  Harold  again  sailed  from 
Bristol,  but  this  time  with  the  royal  forces  to  subdue  the 
Welsh. 

1067.  "  One  of  Harold's  sons  came  with  a  fleet  from 
Ireland  unexpectedly  into  the  mouth  of  the  river 
Avon,  and  soon  plundered  all  the  neighbourhood.  He 
went  to  Bristol  and  would  have  stormed  the  town 
but  the  inhabitants  opposed  him  bravely."  (Sax. 
Chron.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes.  —  The  burgesses  give  wbat 
Bishop  G.  (Geoffrey  de  Mowbray,  Bishop  of  Cou- 
tances)  has,  twenty-three  marks  of  silver  and  one  of 
gold  in  addition  to  the  firma  of  the  King.  Bertune 
(Barton)  and  Bristov  returned  to  the  King  110  silver 
marks. 

1088.  "Geoffrey,  Bishop  of  Coutances,  held  Bristol  castle 
in  conjunction  with  his  nephew  and  accomplice  in 
conspiracy  and  treason,  Robert  de  Mowbray,  a  man 
of  military  experience."  (Florence.)  This  was  in 
Odo's  rebellion,  and  the  castle  would  then  be  the 
Norman  keep  only.  On  its  suppression  Bristol  fell 
into  the  King's  bands.  In  tbis  rebellion  Robert  Fitz 
Hamon  and  William  de  Warren  (see  Lewes)  give  the 
King  "useful  aid  even  with  arms  and  their  counsels 
against  tbe  common  enemy."  (Orderic.) 

1090.  In  return  for  this  support,  Rufus  grants  Fitz 
Hamon  "  bis  mother's  lands,  of  wbicb  be  bad  dis- 
seised bis  brother  Henry."  (Orderic.)  These  included 
Gloucester  and  Bristol,  and  lands  in  Gloucestershire, 
Buckingham,  and  Cornwall.  The  three  first  named 
were  probably  now  united  into  "  The  Honour  of 
Gloucester." 

1100.     August  1.    Fitz  Hamon,  at  Winchester,  endeavours 


120  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

to   persuade   Rufus   to    abandon    his   fatal   hunting 

expedition. 

August  5.     Witnesses  Henry's  letter  to  Archbishop 

Anselm. 

1101.     Autumn.     Declares  for  Henry  (Malmesbury)  and — 
1102-3.     Witnesses  Henry's  charter  to  Rochester  and  his 

Christmas  charter  at  Westminster. 

1104.  Espouses  Henry's  cause  in  Normandy.     (Orderic.) 

1105.  Early  in  the  year  is  captured  by  Duke  Robert's 
forces   at    Sicqueville    and    imprisoned   at    Bayeux. 
(Wace.) 

Easter.  Is  released  by  Henry,  who  burns  Bayeux. 
(Orderic. ) 

Shortly  afterwards  he  is  struck  in  the  forehead  by 
a  lance  at  the  siege  of  Falaise,  loses  his  reason,  and 
dies,  March,  1107.  He  left  an  only  daughter,  Mabel, 
then  a  minor  and  ward  of  the  Crown. 

1121-3.  "  It  is  certain,"  says  Mr.  Round,  in  Geoffrey  de 
Mandeville,  "  that  Robert  Fitz  Roy  received  the  earl- 
dom of  Gloucester  between  April — May,  1121  and 
June,  1123."  Malmesbury  says,  "whom  he  (Henry) 
had  created  Earl  of  Gloucester,  bestowing  on  him  in 
marriage,  Mabel "  (daughter  and  sole  heiress  of  Fitz 
Hamon). 

1121.  Henry  holds  his  Easter  court  at  Berkeley,  in  the 
Honour  of  Gloucester  (Huntingdon).  Perhaps  this 
was  the  occasion  of  Robert's  installation  in  the 
Honour  as  husband  of  Mabel,  to  be  followed  by  the 
creation  of  his  earldom  at  the  Great  Witan  specially 
held  at  Gloucester  on  February  2nd,  1123. 

1123.  June.  Robert  accompanies  Henry  to  Normandy 
(Simeon  of  Durham)  and  besieges  Brionne. 

1126.  September.     He  probably  returns  with  Henry,  for 
"  1126,   the  King  caused  his  brother  Robert  to  be 
taken  from  Roger,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  and  delivered 
to  his  son  Robert,  Earl  of  Gloucester,  and  he  caused 
him  to  be  removed  to  Bristol  and  put  into  the  castle." 
(Sax.  Chron.) 

1127.  January  1.     At  Westminster,  Earl  Robert  contests 
precedence  with  Stephen,  afterwards  King,  in  swear- 
ing allegiance  to  the  widowed  Empress  Matilda  as 
Henry's   successor,  and,  in  the  spring,  with   Brian 
Fitz  Count,  escorts  her  to  Normandy  for  her  marriage 
with  Geoifrey  of  Anjou.     (Sax.  Chron.) 

1129.     Michaelmas.     Earl  Robert  has  returned  to  Eng- 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.       121 

land,  for  he  and  Brian  Fitz  Count  receive  and  audit 
the  Exchequer  accounts  at  Winchester.     (Pipe  Roll.) 

1 1 30.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Bristol  does  not  appear  in  the  Roll 
— perhaps  because  the  city  belonged  entirely  to  the 
Earl.  The  Earl  receives  enormous  sums,  for  those  days, 
throughout  the  kingdom,  including  £20  for  his  [third] 
part  of  the  county.     One  entry  under  Kent  (probably 
inserted  there  because  of  the  hereditary  property  of 
Fitz  Hamon  in  that  county)  seems  to  explain  that 
when  Rufus  disseised   his  brother  Henry   of  "  his 
mother's  lands  "  (see  above,  under  1090)  in  favour  of 
Robert  Fitz  Hamon,  he  charged  the  latter,  and  there- 
fore now  Earl  Robert  his  successor,  with  an  annual 
payment  from  his  Kent  estates.    It  is,  "  Comes  Gloces- 
trice  debet  c  m  arg.  de  conventione  quam  Willelmus  convnn- 
iionaverat  regi  in  Normania  pro  Comitatu." 

1131.  Septembers.     Earl  Robert  is  at  the  Northampton 
council   to   take   the    second   oath   of  allegiance   to 
Matilda,  and  witnesses  the  Salisbury  charter. 

1 133.  Probably  accompanies  Henry  to  Normandy,  as  from 
1133  to  1135  he  administers  the  vacant  see  of  Bayeux. 

1135.  December  1.  He  is  present  at  Henry's  death  at 
Lyons.  (Orderic.) 

So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  our  coins,  Bristol  was  one 
of  the  numerous  mints  granted  during  the  reign  of  Ethel- 
red  II,  The  names  of  all  his  Saxon  successors  appear 
upon  its  coins,  and  there  seem  to  have  been  four  moneyers 
there  at  a  time. 

At  the  date  of  the  Conquest,  Bristol  is  said  to  have  been 
part  of  the  lordship  of  the  unfortunate  Brihtric,  Ealdor- 
man  of  Gloucester,  and  so  given  to  Queen  Matilda.  But 
this  must  "be  an  error,  as  it  is  apparent  from  Domesday 
that  in  the  time  of  the  Confessor  it  was  a  royal  city 
farmed  to  the  burgesses.  In  return  for  material  assist- 
ance on  the  invasion,  and  for  suppressing  a  revolt  of  the 
English  in  the  west,  the  militant  Bishop  of  Coutances — 
Geoffrey  de  Mowbray — received  "two  hundred  and  eighty 
manors  by  grant  from  William  for  his  share  "  (Orderic). 
There  is,  however,  an  incidental  note  in  Domesday,  viz., 

VOL.    1.    FOURTH    SERIES.  It 


122  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

"  when  Roger  (probably  Roger  de  Pistres)  received  Bris- 
tol." Thus  it  would  seem  that  Roger  de  Pistres  was 
appointed  castellan  or  sheriff  immediately  after  the  battle 
of  Hastings,  but  that,  with  Barnstaple,  the  city  was 
granted  to  Bishop  Geoffrey,  for  he  held  it,  and  what  was 
practically  its  tertius  denarius,  until  1088.  As  Queen 
Matilda  died  in  1083,  it  is  quite  possible  that  she  held 
Bristol  in  the  interim. 

The  mint  is  not  mentioned  in  Domesday,  and  as  Bishop 
Geoffrey  held  the  whole  city  it  would  be  included,  and 
therefore  its  rents  and  profits  were  his,  and  to  have  re- 
corded them  would  have  been  to  credit  the  King's  revenue 
with  something  which  did  not  affect  him  one  iota. 

That  Bishop  Geoffrey  did  exercise  the  privilege  of 
coinage  is  proved  by  a  considerable  issue  of  coins  from 
'the  Bristol  mint  at  this  period.  In  fact,  the  various  types 
of  the  Williams  struck  here  correspond  with  the  changes 
of  ownership  of  the  city  during  their  respective  reigns. 

In  1090,  Robert  Fitz  Hamon  received  from  Rufus  the 
city  of  Bristol  as  part  of  the  Honour  of  Gloucester.  He 
was  not  created  Earl  of  Gloucester,  but  the  city  and  mint 
of  Bristol  were  granted  to  him  with  the  Honour  in  like 
manner  as  about  the  same  period  the  city  and  mint  of 
Chichester  were  granted  to  Roger  de  Montgomery,  with 
the  Earldom  of  Shrewsbury,  and  the  town  and  mint  of 
Lewes  to  William  de  Warren  with  the  Earldom  of  Surrey. 
The  general  words  of  a  charter  granting  a  city  or  town 
included  every  right  and  privilege  which  the  King  or  his 
predecessors,  or  the  former  owner,  held  in  it,  and  so 
whether  a  mint  happens  to  be  mentioned  or  not,  unless 
specially  excepted,  it  passed  with  the  town. — See,  for 
instance,  the  wording  of  Henry  I's  charter  under  Col- 
chester, p.  160. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       123 

Robert  Fitz  Hamon  certainly  issued  two  or  three  types 
here  under  Rufus,  and  was  in  England  at  that  King's 
death.  On  Henry's  accession  Fitz  Hamon' s  position  was 
a  delicate  one.  He  had  been  the  personal  friend  of  Rufus, 
and  we  are  told  wept  over  his  corpse  at  Winchester. 
Moreover,  he  unfortunately  held  the  estates  of  which 
Henry  had  been  deprived.  To  quote  Orderic  :  — 

"  1090.  Henry  was  then  at  variance  with  King  William  in 
regard  to  his  mother's  lands  in  England,  which  his  brother 
had  taken  from  him  and  granted  to  Robert  Fitz  Hamor." 

Thus  Henry  must  at  first  have  viewed  Fitz  Hamon 
with  considerable  doubt  and  suspicion.  It  is  therefore 
unlikely  that  the  King  granted  him  his  confirmation 
charter  at  once.  But  in  the  autumn  of  1101,  Fitz  Hamon 
was  one  of  the  few  Norman  barons  who  declared  for 
Henry  upon  Duke  Robert's  invasion,  and  subsequently 
when  peace  was  arranged  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
he  was  high  in  the  royal  favour,  as  he  represented  the 
King  in  the  1103  Treaty  with  Earl  Robert  of  Flanders, 
and  would  have  received  his  charter  as  a  matter  of  course. 
This  will  bring  us  to  the  year  1102,  and  may  account  for 
the  fact  that  type  251  (1100-1102)  does  not  appear  in  the 
subjoined  list  of  Bristol  coins. 

During  1102  and  1103  Fitz  Hamon  is  in  England,  and 
we  have  type  254  (1102-1104)  represented  on  the  Bristol 
coins.  He  is  still  here  during  the  greater  part  of  1104, 
and  type  253  (1104-1106)  is  represented  by  a  single  coin 
of  this  mint.  But  now  Fitz  Hamon's  life,  so  far  as 
England  is  concerned,  closes,  and  the  Bristol  mint  is  sim- 
ultaneously discontinued,  and  lies  dormant  for  a  period  of 
seventeen  or  eighteen  years.  He  sailed  to  Normandy 
towards  the  end  of  1104,  and  after  a  disastrous  military 
career  was  wounded,  and  lost  his  reason  in  1105,  only 


124  NUMISMATIC  CHft02SfICLE. 

to  linger  till  March  1107,  when  he  died  and  his  body  was 
brought  to  Tewkesbury  Abbey  for  interment. 

He  left  no  son,  but  a  daughter  and  sole  heiress,  Mabel, 
who  was  a  minor  at  that  time  and  in  the  wardship  of  the 
King,  as  were  all  feudal  heiresses,  whether  daughters  or 
widows,  in  those  days.  In  no  instance  do  we  find  the  privi- 
leges of  a  mint  exercised  during  the  period  when  it  is  in 
the  King's  hauds,  by  wardship  or  even,  in  the  case  of  an 
ecclesiastical  benefice,  between  the  death  of  one  bishop  and 
the  appointment  of  his  successor,  and  so  until  the  marriage 
of  Mabel,  Fitz  Hamon's  daughter,  and  a  confirmation 
charter  to  her  husband,  coinage  at  Bristol  or  Gloucester 
was  impossible.  Hence  we  have  no  coins  struck  at  either 
mint  of  any  interim  type. 

We  are  told  that  Robert  Fitz  Regis  was  the  eldest  of 
Henry's  natural  children,  and  that  he  was  born  before 
his  father  came  to  the  throne.  As  Henry  was  then  only 
thirty  years  of  age,  and  Robert's  name  first  appears  as  a 
witness  to  a  charter  in  1113,  he  was  probably  born  about 
1095.  Hence  the  old  date  1109  assigned  to  the  marriage 
of  Robert  and  Mabel  Fitz  Hamon  is  improbable.  The 
date  now  usually  accepted  is  1119,  but  both  Henry  and 
Robert  were  then  at  the  Normandy  wars,  and  Mr.  Round 
leaves  this  an  open  question. 

Robert's  marriage,  coupled  with  a  confirmation  charter 
of  the  estates  and  privileges  of  Robert  Fitz  Hamon,  would 
give  him  the  mints  of  Bristol  and  Gloucester,  for  Fitz 
Hamon  held  both.  Therefore  both  mints  after  many  years' 
abeyance  reopen  with  type  IV  (1121-1123),  which  is 
exactly  the  date  of  the  creation  of  the  Earldom. 

Unless,  therefore,  Robert  received  two  charters  within 
two  years,  which  is  not  very  probable,  the  missing  charter 
of  creation  of  the  Earldom  must  also  have  been  that  of 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       125 

confirmation  in  Fitz  Hamon's  Honour  after  his  marriage. 
Fortunately,  Mr.  Round  has  deduced  the  date  of  this 
Creation  Charter  to  the  period  between  April  1121  and 
June  1123,  which  is  remarkably  corroborated  by  the 
coins.  May  one  suggest,  therefore,  that  Henry  held  his 
Easter  Court  at  Berkeley  in  1121,  expressly  to  celebrate 
this  marriage,  which  perhaps  was  at  the  Abbey  of  Tewkes- 
bury,  built  by  Mabel's  father  ;  and  that  the  confirmation 
charter  created  the  Earldom  of  Gloucester,  and  was 
granted  at  the  Court  at  Gloucester  held  on  February  2nd, 
1123,  which  is  within  the  limits  of  time  so  ably  defined  by 
Mr.  Round  ? 

Before  the  close  of  the  issue  of  type  IV,  which  was 
probably  about  Michaelmas,  1123,  Earl  Robert  left  Eng- 
land, so  the  next  type  258,  which  was  continued  until 
Christmas,  1125,  does  not  appear  at  either  the  Bristol  or 
the  Gloucester  mint.  He  returns  for  a  short  visit  about 
September,  1126,  and  is  expressly  mentioned  as  being  at 
Bristol  to  receive  the  custody  of  Duke  Robert  of  Nor- 
mandy. It  is  now,  therefore,  that  type  265  (1126-1128) 
is  issued  at  Bristol,  but  we  have  no  corresponding  coinage 
at  Gloucester.  On  January  1st  following,  he  is  at  Henry's 
Court  at  Westminster,  and  soon  afterwards  escorts  his 
half-sister  to  Anjou,  so  his  visit  to  Bristol  was  probably 
only  for  the  above-mentioned  special  purpose,  and  did  not 
influence  the  Gloucester  coinage. 

From  1129  to  1133  he  is  resident  in  England,  and  types 
262  (1128-1131)  and  255  (1131-1135)  appear  on  the  coins 
of  both  Bristol  and  Gloucester.  Poor  Chatterton  was  not 
very  far  from  the  truth  when  he  invented  the  record  that 
"  Robert  Rouse,  Erie  of  Gloucester,  had  hys  Mynte  at 
Brystowe,  and  coyned  the  best  Monie  of  anie  of  the 
Baronnes  " ! 


126  NUMISMATIC   CHKONICLE. 

Coins  were  struck  at  Bristol  in  the  succeeding  reigns  of 
Stephen  and  Henry  II,  and  the  mint  was  in  operation  at 
various  intermittent  periods  until  the  reign  of  William  III. 

COINS. 

*AILWA[ED  ON]  BEI  :  [*IiENE]IEVS  EE  262 

Watford  find.  AIL  WARD  =  ALFJ7ARD,  and 
a  moneyer  of  this  name  coined  here  in  Saxon 
times. 

*EDR[IE]VS  :  ON  :  BEISTO  :   .frhENEIEVS  •  E  •    265 

Spink  and  Son  (PI.  VII,  No.  3)  ;  from  the 
Montagu,  1896,  and  Marsham,  1888,  Sales. 
Possibly  the  Tyssen,  1802,  Miles  and  Bru- 
mell,  1850,  coin. 

This  moneyer,  as  soon  as  the  Bristol  mint 
became  dormant  in  1127,  seems  to  have 
gone  to  Bedford  to  revive  the  mint,  and 
struck  the  same  type  there.  That  mint  was 
discontinued  about  1128,  and  we  next  find 
him  reviving  coinage  at  Hereford  in  type 
262  (1128—1131)  ;  where,  however,  he 
remains  coining  255  (1131—1135)  and  in 
the  reign  of  Stephen.  That  he  is  the  same 
person  is  the  more  likely  as  Milo,  Constable 
of  Gloucester  and  Sheriff  of  the  shire,  was 
at  that  time  the  King's  Forester  of  Here- 
ford, and  afterwards  Earl  of  the  latter  county 
(see  Bedford  and  Hereford). 

OEDEIEJVS  :  ON  :  BEISTO    *I\ENEIEVS  E     265 

Sale,  May,  1873. 
*6EEAYD  ON:BEIST:  ^fiENEIEVS  E:      262 


Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  7  ;  Snelling, 
i.,  23  ;  and  Ruding,  Sup.,  i.,  11  (see  under 
Lincoln). 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF  THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY   I.       127 

ON  BEI:         ^.IxENEIEVS  EEX  AN     IV 


British  Museum  (PI.  V,  No.  12).  The  termina- 
tion 16  almost  invariably  stands  for  ING, 
e.g.,  SPETI[N]G,  SPRAEI\ELI[N]6.  Hert- 
hing  revived  the  coinage  here  after  an 
interval  of  about  eighteen  years  ;  so,  as  the 
name  was  then  Kentish,  it  is  probable  that 
he  came  from  the  Earl's  possessions  in  that 
county. 

ON  BEIST:  *I\ENEIEVS  E        262 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  [Mr. 
George  Macdonald  and  Dr.  Young  have 
supplied  a  complete  set  of  casts  of  this 
section  of  the  Hunter  collection  to  assist  this 
work.] 

.  ON  BEIS  255 

Battle  find. 


.J.OSBE:  ON  BISES  *I\ENEI   EEX         253 

See  under  BISES,  p.  117. 


ON  .  EIS  .frlxENEIEVS  :         255 

Watford  find.  A  Richard  coined  here  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  II,  and  was,  perhaps,  the 
"  Richard  Aurifaber  "  mentioned  in  that 
king's  charter  to  St.  John's  Bristol.  [As  to 
many  of  these  readings  of  the  coins  of 
Henry  II,  see  Mr.  Nathan  Heywood's  Coinage 
of  Henry  Plantagenet.~\ 

^•SEIPI  ON  BEISTO  254 

Phare  Sale,  1834.  The  moneyer's  name  appears 
here  as  SPEIN  under  the  Williams,  and  his 
ancestors  as  SUPINE  and  SNEPINE  under 
the  Saxons. 

•frSENPI  ON  BEISTO  254 

Dymock  Sale,  1848. 


128 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


BE  .  .  *I\ENKIEVS:  255 


Watford  find.  TVREML  (probably  from 
Danish  ThVRKEL)  continued  to  coin  here 
in  Stephen's  reign. 

Webb  Sale,  1894,  £4  10s.  Od.  254 

Tyssen  Sale,  1802          .         ....  265 

Brumell  Sale,  1850,  "  from  the  Miles  cabinet  "  265 

Powell  Sale,  1877  .  255 


BURY  ST.  EDMUNDS.     See  ST.  EDMUNDSBUKY. 


CANTERBURY  (KENT). 

CANT  WAR  ABYRIG,    CANTERBYRIG,    C^ENTWARABURH,    DOROBERNIA  ; 
Domesday  and  Pipe  Roll,  CANTUARIA  ;  Charters,  CANTER- 

BERIA,  &C. 

"  Canterbury  was  already  famous  in  the  time  of  the 
Romans,"  says  Camden.  It  was  the  Cair  Ceint  of 
Nennius,  the  cradle  of  Christianity  in  England,  the  capital 
of  the  Saxon  kingdom  of  Kent,  and  the  Metropolitan  See 
of  all  England.  In  839,  and  again  in  851,  the  city  was 
stormed  by  the  Danes  with  great  slaughter  of  the  in- 
habitants. In  1009  the  city  was  again  threatened  by 
them,  but  the  people  of  East  Kent  bought  them  off  by 
payment  of  the  enormous  sum  in  those  days  of  £3,000. 
This  only  induced  the  Danes  to  return  in  the  following 
year,  when  they  plundered  and  massacred  the  citizens, 
and  murdered  the  archbishop  because  he  refused  to 
promise  a  second  ransom. 

1066.  After  the  Battle  of  Hastings,  Stigand,  the  Arch- 
bishop, declares  for  Edgar  Atheling,  but  subsequently 
submits  to  William.  He  had  been  suspended  by  Pope 
Alexander  and  so  did  not  crown  the  King.  (Orderic.) 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.       129 

1067.  Ethelnoth,  Governor  of  Canterbury,  accompanies 
William  to  Normandy.  (Orderic.) 

1070.  The  old  Saxon  Monastery  is  destroyed  by  fire.  A 
few  years  afterwards  Lanfranc,  the  new  Archbishop, 
founds  the  Norman  Cathedral. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  Confessor's  time  there 
were  51  burgesses  paying  rent  service  to  the  King, 
and  in  addition  212  who  had  sac  and  soc,  and  three 
mills.  Then  the  city  was  worth  £51.  Now  there  are 
only  19  burgesses  paying  rent  service  as  [the  houses 
of]  82  are  laid  waste.  Eleven  being  in  [making] 
the  city  fosse  and  others  in  erecting  the  castle.  The 
King  has  sac  and  soc  from  212  burgesses.  The  three 
mills  return  108s.  and  the  market  58s.  The  city  is 
assessed  at  £50,  nevertheless  he  who  holds  it  returns 
£30  in  bullion  and  weight  (?  blanched)  and  £24  by 
number.  In  addition  to  all  this  the  Sheriff  has  110s. 
The  mint  is  not  mentioned. 

1089.  Death  of  Archbishop  Lanfranc.  The  King  retained 
the  see  until — 

1093.     Anselm  is  appointed  Archbishop. 

„  William  II  grants  to  Anselm  a  confirmation  charter 
with  all  the  liberties  and  privileges  which  Edward  the 
Confessor  gave  to  the  Church  of  Canterbury.  These 
privileges  are  set  out  at  length,  and  include  those 
"within  the  burg  and  without."  (Foadera,  but 
erroneously  dated  1087.) 

"  William  Rufus  (as  it  is  in  the  register  of  St. 
Augustine's  Abbey)  gave  the  City  of  Canterbury 
entirely  to  the  Bishops,  which  they  had  formerly  held 
only  by  courtesy."  (Camden.) 

1097.  October.  Anselm  quarrels  with  Rufus  and  remains 
in  exile  in  Italy.  Meanwhile  the  King  confiscates  the 
revenues. 

1100.  September.     Henry  recalls  Anselm,  and  confirms 
William's  Charter  of  privileges  to  him.     (Monast.) 

1101.  Anselm    supports    Henry's    cause   against   Duke 
Robert.     (Orderic. ) 

1103.  Lent.     Disagrees  with  the  King  as  to  the  latter's 
temporal  powers  over  the  Church,  and  subsequently 
with    the    King's    approval    again    goes   to   Rome. 
(Florence.) 

1104.  Henry  forbids    his    return    and    confiscates    the 
revenues  of  the  See.     (Wendover.) 

1107.     Anselm  returns  before  August  4th.     (Florence.) 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  S 


130  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1109.     April  21st.     Death  of  Anselm.     The  King  retains 

the  revenues  for  five  years. 
1114.     April  26th.     Ralph,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  appointed 

Archbishop  at  Windsor.     (Florence.)      He   receives 

his  charter  of  privileges.     (Monast.) 
1116.     After  the  Nativity  of  St.  Mary  (September  8th) 

Archbishop  Ralph  sets  out  for  Rome.     (Florence.) 
Is  taken  ill  on  the  way  and  "  stayed  nearly  five 

years  in  Normandy."     (Orderic.) 

1121.  January  4th.    He  returns  to  Canterbury.    (Orderic, 
cf.  Florence.) 

1122.  October  19th.     Death  of  Ralph. 

1123.  February  2nd.    William  de  Corbeil  appointed  Arch- 
bishop, at  Henry's  court  at  Gloucester.     (Florence.) 

Visits  Rome  to  receive  the  pallium,  and  Henry's 
court,  then  in  Normandy,  on  his  return,  but  is  again  in 
Canterbury  on  July  22nd.  (Florence.) 

1124.  Late  in  the  year  again  visits  Henry's  Normandy 
court.     (Florence.) 

1125.  April  12th.     Has  returned  to  Canterbury,  but  in 
the  autumn  sets  out  for  Rome.     (Florence.) 

1126 — 7.  Christmas.  Again  in  England,  swears  fealty  of 
the  succession  to  Matilda  and  receives  a  grant  of  the 
Castle  of  Rochester  from  Henry.  (Florence.) 

1180.  May  4.  Lanfranc's  Cathedral  now  completed  and 
dedicated  in  the  King's  presence,  who  holds  his  court 
here.  (Florence,  Saxon  Chronicler.) 

Pipe  Roll  notes. — The  firma  of  the  city  is  returned 
at  £27  8s.  lOd.  by  weight,  and  the  auxilium  at 
£7  14s.  Od.,  but  on  the  other  side  larger  payments, 
probably  including  these  and  other  revenue  of  the 
See,  are  made  to  the  Archbishop.  William  de  JEines- 
ford  (Aylesford)  pays  9s.  on  account  of  the  goods  of 
one  man  who  was  "  disfactus  "  (the  statutory  punish- 
ment of  a  moneyer).  William  de  .ZEinesford  had 
previously  been  sheriff  of  Hertford  and  was  now  pro- 
bably deputy  sheriff  of  Kent. 

Prior  to  1135.  Robert,  Earl  of  Gloucester,  had  received 
the  Constableship  of  Canterbury  Castle  from  his  father 
Henry  I.  (Orderic.) 

The  great  antiquity  of  the  coinage  at  Canterbury  has 
already  been  referred  to  under  Chapter  III,  p.  17.  By  the 
law  of  Athelstan  the  number  of  moneyers  allowed  to  this 
mint  was  increased  to  seven,  namely,  four  for  the  King,  two 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       131 

for  the  archbishop,  and  one  for  the  abbot  (of  St.  Augus- 
tine's) ;  and,  judging  from  our  coins,  this  number  seems 
to  have  been  maintained  into  the  reign  of  "William  I. 

As  appears  by  the  1093  charter,  Edward  the  Confessor 
had  granted  his  rights  in  the  city  to  the  then  archbishop, 
and  this  will  account  for  the  absence  of  any  reference  to 
the  mint  in  Domesday.  The  expression,  too,  in  the 
Survey,  "  tarn  qui  tenet  [civitatem]  nunc  reddit,"  &c., 
seems  to  corroborate  this,  as,  from  the  context,  it  is  scarcely 
applicable  to  the  Sheriff.  Probably  the  Confessor's  charter 
had  never  been  confirmed  by  the  Conqueror  to  Lanfranc 
(although  he  would  coin  under  his  ancient  rights),  and  so 
there  was  a  doubt  as  to  the  legal  ownership.  But  it  is 
at  least  evident  that  in  1086  whoever  held  the  city  paid 
afirma  to  the  King. 

In  1093  Anselm  is  appointed,  and  it  is  submitted  that  at 
some  time  between  that  year  and  January  1st,  1096,  when 
William,  Bishop  of  Durham,  one  of  the  witnesses,  died, 
must  have  been  the  date  of  the  great  Canterbury  charter. 
Comparing  it  with  what  we  know  of  William  II's  grant 
of  the  city  of  Bath  to  Bishop  John,  the  two  are  very 
similar;  and  as  John  paid  £500  for  his  charter,  so 
the  King  similarly  claimed  £1,000  from  Anselm,  which, 
however,  was  refused  (Wendover).  The  charter  grants, 
or  rather  confirms,  to  Anselm  all  the  privileges  which  the 
Confessor  had  already  granted  to  his  predecessors,  and 
seems  to  imply  that  these  comprised  the  whole  of  the 
King's  rights  within  the  city.  This  would  of  course 
include  the  four  moneyers,  who  were  nominally  the 
King's  ;  and  whether  Camden  refers  to  this  or  some  other ' 
charter  or  record,  he  is  quite  justified  in  saying,  "  Rufus 
gave  the  city  of  Canterbury  entirely  to  the  [archjbishops, 
which  they  had  formerly  held  only  by  courtesy."  It  did 


132  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

not,  however,  follow  that  the  archbishop  employed  them, 
for  no  doubt  he  found  the  three  ecclesiastical  moneyers 
amply  sufficient  for  the  striking  of  any  amount  of  money, 
and  so  reaped  the  more  profit  by  reducing  the  number. 
Although  seven  moneyers  were  coining  here  shortly 
before,  from  this  time  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Henry  I 
only  three  appear  to  do  so  at  any  one  time. 

The  coinage,  too,  which  had  been  practically  con- 
tinuous for  a  great  length  of  time,  is  now  changed,  and 
at  once  becomes  intermittent.  This  is  accounted  for  by 
the  absence  of  Anselm  during  his  exiles.  The  only 
difficulty  is  this :  Did  the  Abbot  of  St.  Augustine's 
exercise  his  privilege  of  one  moneyer  during  the 
Primate's  absence  ?  Seemingly  he  did  upon  one  occasion, 
but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  invariably  accompanied  his 
archbishop  in  exile,  and  usually  upon  his  official  journeys. 

On  Henry's  accession  Anselm  is  at  once  recalled,  and, 
Westminster  tells  us,  "  was  entirely  reconciled  to  the 
King."  He  immediately  received  his  confirmation  charter, 
and  types  251  (1100-1102)  and  254  (1102-1104)  appear. 

According  to  most  of  our  historians  Anselm  again  left 
England  in  1103,  but  this  was  with  the  King's  ap- 
proval, and  he  was  not  exiled  until  the  following  year. 
The  Abbot  of  St.  Augustine's,  therefore,  would  probably 
remain  in  charge  of  the  city,  and  continue  to  coin  in  the 
interim,  under  his  ancient  rights,  until  1104.  To  the 
abbot,  therefore,  unless  there  is  an  error  of  a  year  in 
the  Chronicles — and  Westminster,  in  one  passage,  seems 
to  imply  that  Anselm  went  abroad  in  1104  —  must  be 
'attributed  the  coins  of  type  253  (1104-1106),  struck  no 
doubt  in  the  year  1104. 

From  this  date  until  the  accession  of  Archbishop 
Ralph  in  1114,  we  have  no  Canterbury  coins. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       133 

Anselm  returned  in  1107,  stricken  by  age  and  in- 
firmity, and  died  early  in  1109.  Henry  had  revoked 
his  charter  in  1104,  and  it  is  possible  that  he  never 
renewed  it  in  this  short  period  of  nineteen  months,  and 
no  such  renewal  is  recorded. 

Between  April,  1109,  and  April,  1114,  the  King  held 
the  revenues  of  the  see  in  his  own  hands,  and  therefore, 
as  this  was  no  longer  a  royal  mint,  the  invariable  rule 
applied,  and  no  coins  were  issued. 

On  April  26th,  1114,  Ralph  was  appointed  archbishop 
at  Henry's  court  at  Windsor^  and  received  his  confirmation 
charter  about  the  same  date.  He  at  once  issues  type  267 
(1112-1114),  probably  in  the  last  few  months  of  its 
currency.  This  is  followed  by  266  (1114-1116)  and  264 
(1116-1119),  but  as  he  went  abroad  in  September  or 
October,  1116,  the  single  coin  representing  the  latter 
must  have  been  struck  early  in  its  issue.  From  October, 
1116,  to  January  4th,  1121  [1120  in  the  Chronicles,  which 
adopt  March  25th  as  the  commencement  of  the  years], 
Ralph  remains  abroad,  so  the  intermediate  type  is  absent, 
and  the  next  which  appears  at  Canterbury  is  IV  (1121- 
1123),  when  he  is  once  more  within  his  diocese. 

Archbishop  Ralph  dies  in  October,  1122,  and  "William 
de  Corbeil  succeeds  in  February,  1123.  Although 
Archbishop  William  pays  two  short  visits  abroad,  he  is 
in  England  during  most  of  the  currency  of  type  258 
(1123-1125),  which  now  appears.  In  the  autumn  of  1125 
he,  for  the  "second  time,  journeys  to  Rome,  but  returns  at 
Christmas,  and  remains  in  England  during  the  remainder 
of  the  reign.  Hence  types  265  (1126-1128),  262  (1128- 
1131),  and  255  (1131-1135),  follow  from  Canterbury  as  a 
matter  of  course. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Pipe  Roll  entry  of    1129-30 


134  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

accounting  for  9s.,  now  received  for  the  goods  forfeited  on 
the  conviction  of  the  man  who  was  "  disfactus,"  referred 
to  a  conviction  of  the  years  1126-1128.  As  previously 
remarked,  this  term  seems  to  be  then  specially  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  punishment  of  a  moneyer.  Therefore, 
as  the  name  of  the  moneyer  "  ED  PINE  "  appears  on  type 
265  (1126-1128)  and  then  disappears,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  he  was  the  victim. 

Subject  to  possible  correction  when  the  next  reign  is 
dealt  with,  it  would  appear  that  the  sole  right  of  coinage 
at  Canterbury  remained  vested  in  the  archbishops  until 
the  time  of  John.  That  king,  who  was  no  friend  to  the 
Church,  by  charter  upon  his  accession  revived  three  of 
the  royal  moneyers  here,  and  confirmed  to  the  then  arch- 
bishop only  his  ancient  right'  to  three  moneyers  ;  which, 
however,  seems  to  have  been  the  full  number  now  employed 
by  the  Church  at  one  time.  But  the  monopoly  ceased,  and 
the  profits  were  again  divided  between  Church  and  State. 

Coinage  here  was  continued  until  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward VI. 


COINS. 
EANT  [fi]ENE  .  .         258 


Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 
PL  VI,  No.  7.  Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall, 
ii.,  15.  Obv.  —  A  quatrefoil  before  the  face. 
£ev.  —  «  (jiONEANT"  in  the  inner  circle. 
Withy's  engraver  has  "  imagined  "  the  last 
two  letters  of  the  moneyer's  name  into 
AfiEHVAL.  The  next  two  coins,  however, 
prove  the  name  to  be  A(G)fiEMVND. 
This  family  had  been  moneyers  at  Lincoln 
in  Saxon  times,  and  up  to  the  year  1102,  but 
at  no  other  place.  Hence,  as  Archbishop 
William  was  instrumental  in  the  appointment 
of  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Lincoln  and  had 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       135 

consecrated  him  at  Canterbury  on  July  22nd, 
1123,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  Arch- 
bishop obtained  AGIxEMVND  from  that  city. 
See  Lincoln. 

•frAGIiEMVND  ON  :  EAN  :         .frliENE  .  EYS         255 
Watford  find  ;  2  specimens. 


CAN  .  RENEIE  .  .          255 

F.  Spicer.  Mr.  Spicer  has  contributed  many 
readings  of  the  William  coins  and  Norman 
charters. 

•frEDPINE  ON  ENTN  ^HNEEEXNI         251 

J.  G.  Murdoch.  (PI.  II,  No.  1.)  From  the 
Whitbourn,  1869,  £4  10s.  Od.  ;  Marsham, 
1885,  £13  5s.  Od.  ;  Montagu,  1896, 
£11  15s.  Od.,  and  probably  Tyssen,  1802, 
Sales.  An  EDJ7INE  coined  here  for  Canute 
and  Harold  II  and  an  ELDPINE,  probably 
this  moneyer,  for  Eufus. 

^.'EDPINE  ON  ENTN  251 

Sale,  June,  1855. 

•frEDPINE  ON  EATN  251 

Sale,  January,  1860. 

^EDPINE  ON  EANTA  *  hENEIE  VS  E  :     265 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  20  grs.  The  moneyer  was 
probably  son  of  the  above.  See  page  134. 

^EDPINE  ON  EANTA  *  IiENEIEVS  K      265 

British  Museum. 

.frGEEGOEI:  ON  Eft:  *I\ENEIEVS:        264 

British  Museum.  18|  grs.  Engraved,  Ruding, 
Sup.,  i.,  12.  The  name,  Gregory,  is  simi- 
larly spelt  in  the  Rotuli  Hundredorum,  1272. 


136 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


•frGRIM  ON  E7VN  -frftENEIEVS  E:      262 

Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  10  (corrected 
from  «J«OEIM,  &c.),  probably  the  coin  en- 
graved, Speed's  Chronicle,  1611,  p.  455,  as 
OEIM  .  .  ON  :  S  .  .  .  Grim  was  a  common 
twelfth-century  name,  but  Orim  is  unknown. 

*  OEIM.     See  .J.GEIM. 

.frPEEIN  ON  EANT  *HENEI  EE+        253 

W.  C.  Boyd.    20  grs.    (PI.  II,  No.  14).  The 

name   PEEIN    occurs   in   the   twelfth  and 

thirteenth    century   Eolls,   hence   the  first 
letter  is  not  J7. 

ODBEET  :  DN  EANTA  •     ^.IiENEIEYS  :         255 

British  Museum.  From  the  Durrant  Sale,  1847. 
This  moneyer  continued  to  coin  here  for 
Stephen.  The  position  of  the  colons  in  his 
name  is  unusual  on  English  coins,  though 
common  on  Scotch  of  the  period.  They 
were  probably  so  placed  to  fill  in  a  space 
on  completion  of  the  legend  and  thus  disclose 
that  the  letters  were  not  necessarily  cut  in 
their  literary  sequence.  Robert  was  probably 
father  of  "  4-E066CE  OF  E"  (E06SE 
F1LIVS  EOBEETI)  who  coined  here  for 
Henry  II. 


*EODBE  .  .    .  N  EAN) 

Watford  find.     6  specimens. 

....  BEED  :  ON  :  EAN 
Watford  find. 


255 


255 


EODBEET      

Watford  find. 

EODBEE 

Kennard  Sale,  1892,  from  the  Linton  find. 


.  .  .  ET  :  ON  EAN  :  *  .  .  NEIEV  . 

Watford  find^     8  specimens. 


255 


255 


255 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.       137 


DB  ......  AN:  fchENRIE 

Major  H.  W.  Morrieson. 


RT  :  ON  EA  .  255 

Spink  and  Son. 

*  .  .  DUE  .  .   ON  EAN  *I\EN  .  .  .  VS  255 

Royal  Mint.  Mr.  W.  J.  Hocking  has  supplied 
particulars  of  the  coins  in  this  collection. 

•I.SMIERNE  ON  ETW  *EENRIEVSREX  251 

Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  5.  This 
money er  coined  as  SIMIER  for  the  Williams. 

•frWILLELMVS    ,  N  EAN 

Kennard  Sale,  1892.  From  the  Linton  find. 
The  moneyer  continued  to  coin  here  in  the 
two  following  reigns. 


255 


•frWILLELMVS 


F.  E.  Bigge. 


EAN: 

22  grs. 


•frWILLEM  :  ON  .  ANT  ....  RIE 

W.  J.  Andrew.  From  the  Allen  Sale,  1898. 
Obv.  —  Bust  very  large.  Rev.  —  Design 
larger  than  usual  and  pellet  in  centre  of  the 
cross. 

.  WIL  .  .  M  .  .     .  .    EANP  .  I\  .  .  RI  .  .  . 

Watford  find. 

*  PINEDA  ON  ENTLE  *  HENRI  RE 

W.  J.  Andrew.  The  family  of  this  name 
(variously  spelt)  had  been  coining  here  since 
the  days  of  Canute.  (See  Bath.) 

•frPINEDEI  :  ON    .... 
Bari  find,  Italy. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  T 


255 


255 


255 


254 


267 


138  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


•frPINE  .  .  I    .  .     .  .  ISP        *I\ENEIEVS  BE  ...      IV 

FitzWilliam  Museum,  Cambridge.  Mr.  F. 
Jenkins  has  contributed  readings  and  casts 
of  the  coins  in  the  Cambridge  Museums. 


ON  EANDP  .ffiENEIEVS  E     262 

W.  S.  Lincoln  &  Son. 

*  PINEDA  ON  EANDP  -frhENKIEVS  E       262 

British  Museum. 

4-PINEDAI  :  ON  :  EANTVA       .frhEN  .  .  EVS  :        255 

L.  A.  Lawrence.    21  grs.    (PL  VII,  No.  12.) 

From  the  Allen  Sale,   1898,  and  probably 
Tyssen,  1802. 

•frPINEDAI  ON  EANT  255 

Lewin  Sheppard  Sale,  1861. 

*P  .....  I  :  ON  EANTVA         .  I\E  .  .  IEVS  255 

British  Museum.     Engraved  Ha\vkins,  255. 


AI  ON  EAN  ....  EIEVS  255 

Watford  find. 

^PVLFEIE  ON  ENT  .frHNEI  EEX  NI   251 

British  Museum.  From  the  Durrant  Sale,  1847. 
The  moneyer  coined  here  for  the  Williams. 

*PVLFPINE  ON  :  EAN  ifrhENEIE  EEX      266 

;C.  M.  Crompton  Roberts.  20  grs.  From  Sale, 
March  1894.  The  obverse  does  not  show  the 
hand  pointing.  A  PVLFPINE  coined  here 
for  the  Williams. 

FPIN  ON  EAN  255 

Watford  find. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY    I.       139 

•J.PVLSI  ON  ENTLEI  *hENRI  BEX  E     253 

British  Museum.  From  the  Montagu  1896 
Sale.  The  great  Cardinal  at  first  spelt  his 
name  Wulsey. 


ON  EAN  .  .  .  NEIE  .  .  255 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 

Tyssen  Sale,  1802.     8  specimens     ....   255 
»        ,,        ,,        1  specimen     .        .        .        .IV 

The  coin  of  type  256,  queried  by  Hawkins  to  this 
mint,  is  of  Thetford. 


CARLISLE  (CUMBERLAND). 

C^BLETE,    CABLEOLIUM,    CARDOYL,    LUGUBALIA  ;     Pipe     Roll, 
CHAERLEOIL  and  CAERLEOLIUM  ;  Charters,  CARLIOLUM,  &c. 

According  to  Nenuius,  "  Cair-lulid "  was  one  of  the 
thirty- three  later  British  cities,  and  we  know  that  it 
was  one  of  the  principal  northern  strongholds  of  the 
Romans.  Their  walls  were  still  standing  when  in  the 
seventh  century  Egfrid,  King  of  Northumbria,  gave  the 
town  to  St.  Cuthbert,  whence  it  subsequently  became 
part  of  the  See  of  Durham.  In  875  it  was  devastated  by 
the  Danes,  who  left  it  a  heap  of  ashes  and  ruins,  and  such 
it  remained  until  after  the  Norman  Conquest. 

1092.  "The  King  (William  II)  went  into  Northumbria 
and  restored  the  city  which  is  called  in  the  British 
tongue  CAIELEU  and  in  Latin  LUGUBALIA,  and 
built  a  castle  there  ;  for  this  city,  like  some  others  in 
that  quarter,  had  been  laid  in  ruins  by  the  heathen 
Danes  two  hundred  years  before,  and  had  been  unin- 
habited up  to  this  time."  (Florence  and  cf.  Wen- 
dover  under  1093.) 

Rufus  commenced  the  Norman  keep  and  appointed 
Walter  (probably  Walter  Fitz  Gilbert  de  Clare)  cas- 
tellan. 

1122.  Henry  I  ordered  a  wall  to  be  built  round  the 
town.  (S.  of  Durham.) 


140  NUMISMATIC  CHRoMC'I.E. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Carlisle  is  in  the  Royal  Manor. 
The  burgesses  are  allowed  £14  16s.  6d.  and  £6  2s.  Od. 
towards  building  the  wall  round  the  town.  William 
Fitz  Baldwin  (probably  Fitz  Gilbert)  seems  to  have 
been  castellan,  as  he  farmed  the  "  gardinnm  "  of  the 
King  at  Carlisle  and  payments  are  imde  to  the  garrison. 
The  Canons  of  St.  Mary  receive  benefits.  The  "bur- 
gesses of  Carlisle  "  account  for  one  hundred  shillings, 
the  previous  year's  rent  of  the  silcer  mine,  but  "  Wil- 
liam and  Hildret  "  owe  forty  pounds  for  the  current 
year's  rent  of  it,  Hildret  had  been  Sheriff,  but  his  son 
Odard  had  now  succeeded  to  that  office. 

1138.  Henry  established  a  new  bishopric  at  Carlisle  and 
appointed  Athelwulf,  prior  of  St.  Oswald's,  Bishop. 
Athelwnlf  immediately  placed  regular  canons  in  the 
church  and  "  conferred  many  honours  upon  it "  (cf. 
Torigni,  Wendover,  &c,). 

1133.  "At  this  time  also  a  vein  of  silver  had  been  dis- 
covered at  Carlisle  whence  prospectors  ("  inves- 
tigatores  "),  who  sought  it  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth, 
paid  in  royalties  to  King  Henry  five  hundred  pounds 
a  year."  (Torigni.) 

Thus  in  forty  years  Carlisle,  phoenix-like,  rose  from  its 
ashes  to  be  the  See  of  a  bishopric,  a  royal  manor  held  by 
castle*guard,  and  the  centre  of  the  principal  silver  mines 
in  England.  Prior  to  Henry's  reign  we  have  no  coins  of 
this  town,  but  now  at  some  period  the  privilege  of  coining 
is  granted,  and  it  is  not  very  difficult  to  surmise  when. 
The  Honour  of  Carlisle  was  held  by  Ralph  de  Meschines 
until  1120,  but  upon  his  succession  to  the  Earldom  of 
Chester  in  that  year  he  surrendered  it  to  the  King, 
and  it  thus  became  a  royal  manor  (see  the  Wetherall 
Chronicle  and  Charters).  In  1122  Henry  visited  Durham, 
and  prior  to  that  date,  owing  probably  to  the  disfavour  of 
Ranulf,  bishop  of  that  city,  there  had  also  been  no  coinage 
at  Durham,  for  it  is  unlikely  that  any  confirmation  charter 
of  the  Palatine  rights  up  to  that  time  had  been  granted 
to  the  bishop  by  Henry.  Nor,  in  fact,  had  any  coins  been 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENKY  I.       141 

issued,  except  from  the  mint  of  York,  in  the  whole  of 
Northumbria.  Thus,  as  the  "  Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer  " 
explains  : — 

"  Certain  counties  from  the  time  of  King  Henry  I,  and  in  the 
time  of  King  Henry  II,  could  lawfully  offer  for  payment  (in 
taxes)  coins  of  any  kind  of  money  provided  they  were  of  silver 
and  did  not  differ  from  the  lawful  weight ;  because  indeed,  by 
ancient  custom  not  themselves  having  moneyers,  they  sought 
their  coins  from  all  sides  (Scotland) ;  such  are  Northumber- 
land and  Cumberland." 

The  expression  in  the  1130  Roll,  "burgesses  of  Car- 
lisle," shows  that  at  some  time  prior  to  that  date  they 
had  received  a  charter  of  incorporation,  and  as  Henry's 
direction  to  build  the  town  wall  was  coincident  with  the 
date  of  his  visit  to  Durham,  we  may  take  it  that  in 
response  to  a  petition,  he  then  granted  a  charter  to  them 
upon  that  condition.  Now  follows  the  discovery  of  the 
silver  mine.  It  will  be  noticed  that  Robert  de  Torigni 
uses  the  past  tense  in  speaking  of  this  under  the  year 
1133,  after  recounting  the  establishment  of  the  See,  and 
the  Pipe  Roll  clearly  shows  that  the  mine  had  been 
worked  as  early  as  1128-1129,  for  arrears  of  royalties  are 
paid  for  that  year.  That  the  mine  only  commenced  its 
output  about  1128  seems  inferred  from  the  fact  that  its 
royalties  were  only  £5  in  that  year,  £40  in  the  next,  and 
£500  in  1133.  Not  only  because  it  was  within  a  royal 
manor,  but  by  ancient  custom  the  mine  was  the  King's, 
and  up  to  1129  it  would  appear  to  have  been  farmed  to 
"  the  burghers  of  Carlisle,"  but  in  that  year  Hildret,  the 
late  sheriff,  and  "  William,"  had  it.  It  is  probable  that 
only  now,  in  1129,  when  the  rent  springs  from  £5  to  £40, 
the  Royal  mint  is  established,  and  that  the  mint  and  mine 
were  farmed  together  to  Hildret  and  William  under  charter 
from  the  King,  for  in  1157-58  the  Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that 


142 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


William  Fitz-Erembald  paid  100  marks  of  silver  for  rent 
of  the  mine,  and  in  the  1 163-64-  Roll  he  is  styled  "  William 
Monetarius."  This  William  ceased  to  farm  it  in  1179,  so 
it  is  just  possible  that  he  was  the  "  William  "  of  1130. 

The  coins  of  Carlisle,  therefore,  commence  with  type 
262  (1128-1131),  but  only  upon  one  of  this  type  is  the 
moneyer's  name  discernible  :  it  is  DUEANT.  A  DUEAN 
family  coined  at  York  in  Saxon  times,  so  as  the  name 
only  appears  at  Carlisle  on  the  first  type,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  Durant  was  merely  sent  from  York  for  a  short  period 
to  establish  the  new  venture.  He,  or  his  son,  is  pro- 
bably the  Durant  who  held  lands  at  "  Coteby,"  mentioned 
in  Henry  II's  charter  to  St.  Mary's,  York.  After  him, 
however,  we  find  the  name  of  EEEBALD  on  the  next  type, 
255  (1131-1135).  He  is,  of  course,  the  EEEMBALD  just 
mentioned,  and  we  find  his  name  upon  the  coins  from  now 
to  about  the  middle  of  Stephen's  reign.  Then  WILLIAM 
[Fitz-EEEMBALD]  appears,  and  continues  the  coinage  into 
the  reign  of  Henry  II.  So  we  have  an  unbroken  sequence 
of  father  and  son  coining  at  Carlisle  from  1131  to  1179, 
not  only  recorded  upon  our  coins  but  certified  by  our 
records.  Thus  the  mint  was  allowed  but  one  moneyer  at 
a  time,  and  that  moneyer,  in  Henry  II's  reign  at  least, 
worked  the  silver  mine.  Coinage  here  was  continued 
until  the  reign  of  Henry  III. 


S  EE     262 


COINS. 
^.DVEANT  :  ON  :  EAELI  : 

J.  G.  Murdoch.  (PI.  VII,  No.  6.)  From  the 
Montagu,  1896  (£10  10s.  Od.)  •  Martin,  1859 
(£5  15s.  Od.);  Murchison,  1864  (£6  6s.  Od.); 
April,  1873,  and  Brice  collections.  It  is 
said  to  have  been  Mr.  Cuff's,  but  it  does  not 
appear  in  his  catalogue.  As  to  this  moneyer, 
see  above. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGX    OF    HENRY  I.       143 

ON  EARLI  262 

Dean  of  St.  Patrick's  Sale,  1842. 
[*E]REB[ALD  :  O]N  :  EAE  255 

L.  A.  Lawrence.    22  grs.    From  Sale,  Decem- 
ber, 1891.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  p.  142. 


CHESTER. 

LEIGECEASTER,  LEICESTER,  LEEESTER,  LEHECESTER,  LEGACESTER, 
CESTER  ;  Domesday,  CESTRE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  CESTRIA. 

From  the  time  of  the  Roman  conquest  of  Britain  to  the 
wars  of  Charles  I,  Chester  seems  always  to  have  had  the 
honour,  or  misfortune,  of  a  prominent  position  in  the 
internal  military  history  of  England.  According  to  Nen- 
nius  it  was  the  Cair  Legion  of  the  later  Britons.  In  607, 
the  Saxon  Chronicle  records  that  "Ethelfrith  led  his  army 
to  Chester,  and  there  slew  numberless  Welshmen  (Britons) 
....  also  two  hundred  Druids,"  The  same  authority  tells 
us  that  in  894  the  Danes  fled  before  Alfred  and  Ethelred 
to  "  a  western  city  in  Wirheal  (Wirrall),  which  is  called 
Legaceaster,  and  thence  into  Wales."  It  is  described  as  a 
fortress,  and  Florence  adds  that  it  was  at  that  time  de- 
serted, but  in  908  "the  city  called  in  the  British 
tongue  Karlegion,  and  in  the  Saxon  Legeceaster,  was 
rebuilt  by  order  of  Ethered  the  Ealdorman  and  Ethel- 
fleda."  Accordingly,  as  the  Saxon  or  Danish  authority 
was  for  the  time  uppermost  in  the  north,  Chester  was 
taken  and  retaken,  and  when  the  Danish  struggles  were 
over,  it  was  ever  an  object  of  assault  to  its  ancient  pos- 
sessors, the  Welsh  Britons. 

1066.     Harold's  widow  retires  here. 

1070.  Chester,  the  last  city  to  stand  out  against  William, 
is  taken  by  him  and  the  country  ravaged.  (Orderic, 
&c.)  He  founds  the  castle.  (Orderic.) 


144  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1071.     Earldom  of  the  County  Palatine  with  titular  sove- 
reign rights  granted  to  Hugh  d'Avranches. 
1075.     See  of  Lichfield  translated  here. 

1081.  Earl  Hugh  witnesses  the  St.  Edmundsbury  charter. 

1082.  Witnesses  one  of  the  Durham  charters.     (Fcedera.) 
1086.     Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of   the  Confessor 

431  houses  paid  tax  and  in  addition  the  Bishop  had 
56.  The  city  then  paid  10£  marks  of  silver,  but  after- 
wards a  firma  of  £45  and  3  martin  skins,  two-thirds 
to  the  King  and  one-third  to  the  Earl  (Gherbod). 
Every  hide  in  the  county  contributed  a  man  to  repair 
the  walls  or  bridge. 

"In  the  time  of  King  Edward  there  were  7 
moneyers  in  the  city,  who  paid  £7  to  the  King  and 
Earl,  beyond  their  firma  (rent),  when  the  money  was 
changed'"' — "  Quando  moneta  vertebatur." 

When  Earl  Hugh  received  the  city  it  was  not  worth 
more  than  £30,  for  it  was  greatly  wasted.  There 
were  205  fewer  houses  than  in  King  Edward's  time 
(destroyed  by  William  in  1070).  "  Now— 1086— 
there  are  only  as  many  as  he  found.  Mundret  held 
the  city  of  the  Earl  for  £70  and  1  mark  of  gold  and 
had  all  pleas  of  the  county  except  Inglefield." 
1088.  Earl  Hugh  adheres  to  Rufus  in  Odo's  rebellion. 

1091.  Is  in  Normandy,  and  concerned  in  Henry's  short 
war  against  Rufus,  but  makes  his  peace. 

1092.  At  Chester  and  restores  the  monastery  of  St.  Wer- 
burgh.     (Orderic. ) 

1097.     Joins  William's  army  in  Normandy.     (Orderic.) 

1100.  In  Normandy  at  the  time  of  William's  death,  but 
after  putting  his  affairs  in  order  he  hastened  to  Eng- 
land, offered  due  submission  to  the  new  King  "  and 
received  confirmation  in  his  possessions  and  all  his 
dignities  with  royal  gifts."     (Orderic.) 

1101.  Earl  Hugh  nominally  becomes  a  monk  and,  after  a 
long  illness,  dies  at  Chester,  July  27th.     He  is  buried 
in  the  Monastery  of  St.  Werburgh.     (Orderic.) 

Richard  his  son  succeeds,  but  Orderic  mentions  that 
he  was  then  a  minor,  and  as  he  also  says  he  only  held 
the  Earldom  for  nearly  12  years,  Richard  could  not 
have  been  invested  by  Henry  until  about  1108. 

1102.  The  Earl   of  Morton   assailed   Richard,   Earl   of 
Chester,  the  son  of  Hugh,  in  Normandy,  plundering 
his  possessions,  "  the  Earl  himself  being  at  that  time 
a  minor  and  under  the  protection  and  guardianship 
of  the  King."     (Malmesbury.) 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       145 

1104.     Earl   Richard  is  at  Henry's  court  in  Normandy. 

(Orderic.)  As  a  minor  he  would  be  attached  to  the  court. 
1113.     In  Normandy,  and  witnesses  the   charter  to  St. 

Evroul.     (Orderic.) 

1118.  In    Normandy,   witnesses    the    Savigny  charter. 
(Round.) 

1119.  In  Normandy,  marries  Matilda  of  Blois. 

1120.  November  25th.      Sails   from   Normandy   and   is 
drowned  in  the  "White  ship."     Ranulf  I,  called  Le 
Meschin  or  "of  Bayeux,"  his  cousin,  succeeds.     He 
had  married,  early  in  the  century,  Lucia,  widow  of 
Roger  de  Roumare.     (See  under  Lincoln.) 

1120.  "Ranulf    of  Bayeux    obtained    the    earldom   of 
Chester  with  all  the  patrimony  of  Earl  Richard,  being 
the  nex-t  heir  as   nephew  of    Matilda,  Earl  Hugh's 
sister."     (Orderic.) 

Ranulf  is  in  England,  for  he  attends  the  January, 
1121,  Council  at  London  (Round),  and  exchanges 
some  of  the  lands  of  his  wife  with  the  King  in  return 
for  the  earldom.  (Orderic.) 

1121.  Chester  is  raided  by  the  Welsh.     (Hoveden.) 

1123.  Earl  Ranulf  accompanies  Henry  and  Robert,  Earl 
of  Gloucester,  to  Normandy  (S.  of  Durham),  and  is 
castellan  of  the  Tower  of  Evreux  during  the  winter, 
1123-4.     (Orderic.) 

1124.  Commands  Henry's  forces  at  the  Battle  of  Bourg- 
Theroulde,  in  Normandy.     (Orderic.) 

1128.  January  27.     Death  of  Earl  Ranulf  I,  who  is  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  Ranulf  II  or  "  de  Gernons." 

1129.  The  See  is  translated  to  Coventry.     (Florence.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Dr.  Hunter  suggests  that  the 
Chester  portion  is  lost,  but,  surely,  a  County  Palatine 
"  held  by  the  Earl  as  the  King  held  his  own  honours  " 
would  have  its  own  Court  of  Exchequer.     Hence,  as 
the  new  Earl  could  not  account  to  himself  at  Chester 
for  his  relief  upon  his  succession,  he  is  debited  with 
it  in  the  Roll  under  Lincoln,  where  his  mother's  here- 
ditary estates  were.     The  late  Earl  is  but  recently 
dead,  for  his  widow,  "Lucia  Comitissa  Cestriae,"  owes 
600  marks  of  silver  that  she  should  not  be  married 
again  for  five  years.     This  refers  to  the  King's  privi- 
lege of  bestowing  the  hands  of  heiresses  upon  his 
favourites  and  receiving  fees  in  return  from  the  hus- 
bands.    (See  Wallingford.)     That  she  owes  it  shows 
that  it  was  the  previous  year's  assessment,  and  there- 

TOL.    1.    FOURTH    SERIES.  U 


146  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

fore  Ranulf  I  died  before  Michaelmas,  1129.  She 
accounts  for  £266  18s.  4d.  in  respect  of  [her  dower 
in]  the  land  of  her  father  in  succession  to  her  husband, 
and  for  various  other  sums.  The  new  Earl,  who  evi- 
dently is  in  England,  amongst  other  items  owes  £1,000 
"  de  debito"  of  his  father  for  the  land  of  Earl  Hugh 
(the  earldom  of  Chester),  and  500  marks  of  silver 
according  to  the  agreement  which  the  King  made  be- 
tween him  and  his  mother  concerning  her  dower. 
(William  de  Roumare,  Lucia's  eldest  son  and  heir  to 
the  Lincoln  earldom,  had  rebelled  because  the  King 
would  not  listen  to  his  claim  "to  the  land  of  his 
mother  which  Ranulf  of  Bayeux,  his  step-father,  had 
exchanged  with  the  King  for  the  earldom  of  Chester." 
— Orderic.) 

1181.  Earl  Ranulf  witnesses  Henry's  charter  to  Salisbury 
at  the  Northampton  council  on  September  8th. 
(Round.) 

1136.  Leads  a  disastrous  expedition  against  the  Welsh. 
(Hagulstad.) 

Although  not  specified  in  the  Law  of  Athelstan,  the 
name  of  this  town  first  appears  on  the  coins  of  his  reign — 
that  is,  soon  after  the  restoration  of  the  town  by  Ethel- 
fleda.  Coins  of  Eadmund  and  Eadgar  are  in  evidence  of 
the  Chester  mint,  and  also  of  all  the  latter' s  successors, 
to  the  close  of  the  Saxon  dynasty.  Ruding  naturally 
points  out  the  fact  that  although  the  mint  is  mentioned  in 
Domesday  under  the  Confessor,  as  quoted  above,  it  is  not 
noticed  as  existing  in  the  reign  of  William  I. 

When  William,  in  1070,  founded  the  castle,  he  granted 
the  city  to  Gherbod,  the  Fleming,  but  Gherbod  soon 
went  abroad  and  suffered  a  long  imprisonment  (Orderic). 
Whether  he  was  anything  more  than  castellan  and  lord 
of  the  city  is  doubtful,  for  his  tertius  denarius  seems  to 
have  been  that  of  the  city  only.  But  in  1071  William 
granted  unto  "  Hugh  D'Avranches  and  his  heirs  the 
whole  county  of  Chester,  to  hold  as  freely  by  his  sword  as 
he  himself  held  England  by  his  crown."  How,  there- 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       147 

.fore,  could  Domesday  possibly,  include  in  the  King's 
revenue  the  rent  and  fees  of  a  mint  already  granted  to 
the  Earl  ?  Perhaps  this  sword  of  state  was  the  one 
referred  to  below. 

The  coins  we  have  of  this  mint  under  the  Confessor 
exactly  corroborate  Domesday's  statement  that  there  were 
seven  moneyers  here  at  that  time.  But  as  half  the  town 
had  been  destroyed  in  1070,  Earl  Hugh  seems  to  have 
reduced  their  number  to  three,  and  no  doubt  that  number 
was  ample  in  the  desolated  condition  in  which  the  north 
of  England  then  was.  One  of  the  others,  however,  he 
removed  to  Rhuddlan,  but  there  the  Earl  had  only  a  half 
share  in  the  mint,  so  its  revenue  is  brought  into  the 
Domesday  accounts  to  be  divided  between  King  and  earl. 

On  Henry's  accession,  Earl  Hugh  was  abroad,  but 
presently  returned,  and  immediately  after  receiving  "  con- 
firmation in  his  possessions  and  all  his  dignities  "  died, 
July  27th,  1101.  There  would,  therefore,  scarcely  be  time 
for  type  251  (1100-1102)  to  be  issued,  even  if  the  earl 
had  not  taken  "the  monastic  habit  in  the  Abbey  at 
Chester."  But  a  coin  of  that  type  is  assigned  to  Chester 
in  the  Montagu  Catalogue,  and  is  here  given  under  this 
mint  and  under  Lewes  (which  see),  as  it  may  equally  well 
be  assigned  to  either.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  notice 
that  the  lettering  on  this  type,  251,  is  almost  identical 
with  the  inscription  "  HVGO  EOMEZ  "  upon  the  blade  of 
the  sword  in  the  British  Museum,  at  present  attributed 
to  either  this  earl  or  the  Earl  Hugh  of  Henry  II's  time. 

Earl  Richard  succeeds  but  is  a  minor,  then  aged  seven 
(Chronicle  of  St.  Werburg),  and  therefore  his  estates 
and  himself  would  be  in  wardship  to  the  King.  In 
such  cases  coinage  was  never  continued  ;  e.g.,  the  parallel 
cases  of  Bristol,  Ipswich,  etc. 


148  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

In  1104  Richard,  still  a  minor,  is  recorded  as  one  of 
those  who  "  honourably  received  "  the  King  upon  his 
arrival  in  Normandy.  The  moral  influence  of  his  presence 
there  had  probably  been  rendered  advisable  in  consequence 
of  the  Earl  of  Morton's  raid  in  1102.  He,  however, 
returns  to  England  with  the  King,  for  on  Whit  Sunday, 
May  13th,  1106,  he  is  with  his  mother  at  Abingdon,  and 
under  her  auspices  grants  a  charter  to  the  monastery  in 
memory  of  Earl  Hugh.  From  that  date  to  1119  his  name 
is  absent  from  our  English  chronicles  and  charters,  but  as 
meanwhile  he  witnesses  at  least  six  of  the  latter  in  Nor- 
mandy he  may  be  presumed  to  have  remained  abroad.  It 
was,  however,  necessary  before  his  marriage  to  Matilda  of 
Blois,  in  1119,  that  he  should  receive  his  confirmation 
charter  of  the  Palatine  Earldom,  and  so,  although  he  is 
a  witness  to  the  Savigny  Charter  in  1118,  we  find  him 
returning  to  England  early  in  1119  to  take  seizin  of  his 
hereditary  estates.  This  is  proved  by  his  own  confirma- 
tion charter  to  St.  Werburg's  Monastery,  dated  at 
Grantham,  1119.  Immediately,  therefore,  type  263 
(1119-1121)  appears  at  Chester,  being  the  first  coinage 
struck  in  that  city  after  an  interval  of  eighteen  years. 
At  Grantham  he  was  probably  returning  to  Normandy, 
for  he  was  married  there  in  the  same  year,  and  he  and 
his  bride  perished  in  the  wreck  of  the  unfortunate  White 
Ship,  November  25th,  1120. 

Ranulf  I  succeeds,  but  as  his  descent  was  from  the 
sister  of  the  first  earl,  and  therefore  gave  no  claim  dejure, 
he  only  obtained  the  earldom  upon  condition  of  the 
surrender  to  the  King  of  his  Cumberland  lordship.  (See 
Carlisle,  p.  140.)  As  he  attests  a  charter  at  the  January 
Council  at  London  in  1121  as  Earl  of  Chester,  he  prob- 
ably had  already  received  his  "  confirmation,"  and  there- 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       149 

fore  continued  to  issue  type  263  (1119-1121),  which  is 
followed  by  IV  (1121-1123). 

In  June,  1123,  Earl  Ranulf  accompanies  Henry  to  Nor- 
mandy, and  perforce  the  coinage  promptly  stops.  He  is 
still  there  in  1124,  and  died  before  1129— probably  in  1128 
— so  since  neither  his  return  nor  his  death  is  mentioned 
by  any  English  chronicler  (except  that  the  Chronicle 
of  St.  Werburg  gives  the  day  of  the  month,  viz., 
January  27th,  though  not  the  year,  which,  however,  was 
probably  1128),  he  may  be  presumed  to  have  remained 
and  died  abroad,  where  his  name  is  associated  with  several 
•Normandy  charters.  The  Chester  mint,  therefore,  was  in 
abeyance  from  1123  to  1128. 

The  Pipe  Roll  shows  that  Ranulf  II  was  in  England 
and  had  already  succeeded  to  the  earldom  in  1129,  also 
that  he  was  then  paying  his  relief  to  the  crown,  and  so 
had  received  his  confirmation  charter.  The  mint  reopens, 
and  type  262  (1128-1131)  is  issued.  Ranulf  is  certainly 
here  in  1131,  and  in  fact  remains  in  England  all  the  rest 
of  his  life,  so  type  255  (1131-1135)  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course. 

The  old  mint  of  Chester  was  in  operation  until  the  early 
years  of  Henry  II,  when  it  was  discontinued.  It  was, 
however,  more  than  once  revived  for  a  short  period  in 
later  times. 

COINS. 
*AILMA[E]    .  N  :  EESTE  .frhENEIEVS  :         255 

Watford  find.  The  moneyer  continued  to  coin 
here  for  Stephen,  and  Alymer  is  a  Chester 
name  to-day. 

.frEEISTEET  :  ON  :  EES  :  .frhENEIEVS  EE     262 

British  Museum.  Engraved  Ruding,  Sup.,  ii., 
1,  5,  and  Hawkins,  262.  EILLE  coined 


150 


.    NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

here  for  Harold  I,  EILLEEBIST  for  Har- 
thacnut,  and  now  ERISTEET.  As  to  the 
evolution  of  these  compound  family  names 
see  Introduction  to  the  London  mint.  This 
note  alone  should  clear  the  vexed  question, 
as  to  which  are  Chester  and  which  Leicester 
coins,  for  the  first  name  is  followed  hy  ON 
LEIEE,  the  second  by  ON  LE6EEE  and 
LE6IE  and  the  last  by  ON  EES  which  ob- 
viously represents  the  Chester  mint.  Christy 
is  a  Chester  name  to-day. 

•*  ERISTEET  ON  EES 
Sale,  March,  1871. 


*  ERISTEET  :  ON  :  EES  : 
J.  G.  Murdoch. 

.frEEITEE  :  ON  LEI . 


4-hENEIEVSEE    262 


.  .  ENRIEVS  EEX  : 

AN 


IV 


British    Museum.      PL    V,    No.    11.       The 
moneyer  is  probably  for  EEI[S]TEE. 


S  EE      262 


•frGILLEMOE  :  ON  :  EES  :  

Watford  find.  CILLEJ7INE  ON  LEH  for 
Chester  under  the  Confessor ;  6LLLEMOB 
ON  EES,  Henry  I.  See  EEISTEEr7~ 


^.TIiVRBVRN  :  ON  :  EES 


•frfrENRIEVS 


255 


Montagu  Sale,  1897.  Engraved  Num.  Chron., 
1883,  vii.,  1.  From  the  Linton  find  and 
Mr.  Wakeford's  collection.  Thorburn  is  still 
a  Chester  name. 

* TIi VEB  ..  N  :  OKIES  *I\EN  .  .  EVS  : 

Watford  find.     2  specimens. 

.  TVERET  ON  EESTEE 

Sale,  April,  1874.     Perhaps  for  EEISTEET. 


255 


262 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       151 

•frPINNEIED  ON  LEI  *HNEI  EEX  N      251 

J.  Verity.  From  the  Durrant,  1847,  £7  13s.  Od. ; 
Wigan,  Brice,and  Montagu,  1896,  £5  5s.  Od., 
collections.  See  Lewes. 

•fr EA  :  ON  :  LEI\  .  IiENEI  EEX  263 

Webb  Sale,  1894,  £8.  From  the  Martin, 
1859,  £8  5s.  Od. ;  Murchison,  1864, 
£5  7s.  6d. ;  Whitbourn,  1869,  £2  10s.  Od., 
and  Neck  collections. 


BIE    .  N  EEST  .frliENEIEVS  E       262 

A.  A.  Banes.     Possibly,  EEISTEIE. 

Tyssen  Sale,  1802.  IV 

The  second  coin  of  type  263  in  the  Webb  Catalogue  1894, 
misread  ON  LEIEESTEE,  is  a  Winchester  coin. 


CHICHESTEE  (Susssx). 

ClSECEASTEK,  ClSSACEASTEB,  ClCCASTKIA  ;     Domesday,  ClCESTBE  ; 

Pipe  Roll,  CICESTKIA, 

Chichester  was  a  Roman  station  of  considerable  import- 
ance, and  the  rectangular  plan  of  its  streets  to-day  is  a 
survival  of  the  original  design  of  its  founders.  In  477, 
the  Saxon  chiefs  ^lla  and  Cissa  landed  on  the  coasts  of 
Sussex,  and  there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt  that  they 
took  Chichester,  and  that  the  latter  made  it  his  capital, 
hence  Cissa-ceaster.  As  such  it  remained  the  capital  of  the 
South  Saxons  until,  after  being  for  a  time  annexed  to 
Mercia,  that  kingdom  of  the  Heptarchy  was  subdued  by 
Egbert  in  823.  In  895  the  men  of  Chichester  "  slew  many 
hundreds  of  the  Danes  and  took  some  of  their  ships  "  (Sax. 
Chron.).  Chichester  prospered,  and  was  a  thriving  city 
at  the  date  of  the  Conquest. 


152  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

1068.     "King  William  gave  to  Roger  de  Montgomery  first 
the  castle  of  Arundel  and  the  city  of  Chichester  "- 
with  the  earldoms  of  Chichester  and  Arundel — "  and 
afterwards  the  earldom  of  Shrewsbury."     (Orderic.) 

1070.  About  this  time  Stigand,  Bishop  of  Sussex,  removes 
the  seat  of  the  bishopric  from  Selsey  to  Chichester, 
and  Earl  Roger  grants  him  the  whole  of  the  south- 
west quarter  of  the  city  as  a  site  for  the  cathedral 
and  palace.  Earl  Roger  founds  the  Norman  castle. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  King  Edward's  time,  the 
city  contained  about  100  houses.  Now  the  city  is  in 
the  hands  of  Earl  Roger,  and  there  are  60  houses 
more  than  there  were  before,  and  one  mill.  The  city 
rendered  £15  to  the  Confessor  and  £W — the  tertius 
denarius  of  the  city — to  the  then  Earl.  "  Now  it  is 
worth  £25,  and  yet  it  returns  £35."  The  mint  is  not 
mentioned. 

1088.  Earl  Roger  in  arms  at  Arundel  secretly  for  Robert 
of  Normandy,  but  makes  peace  with  William,  and 
hastens  to  Normandy  to  oppose  Duke  Robert. 
(Florence  and  Orderic.) 

1091.     Ralph  Luffa  appointed  Bishop  of  Chichester. 

1095.  July  27th.  Death  of  Earl  Roger  at  Shrewsbury. 
(Orderic.)  His  sons  succeed  :  Hugh  de  Montgomery 
to  his  English  earldom,  and  Robert  de  Beleme  to  his 
Norman  possessions.  (Orderic.) 

1098.  Earl  Hugh  is  slain  in  an  affray  on  the  Welsh 
coast.  (Orderic.)  Robert  de  Beleme  pays  £3,000  to 
William  II  for  succession  to  his  brother's  English 
earldoms. 

1100.  Orderic  mentions  Earl  Robert  in  the  same  clause 
with  the  Earl  of  Chester  as  both  being  in  Normandy 
at  the  date  of  Henry's  accession  ;  but  putting  their 
affairs   in   order,   they   hastened   to   England    "  and 
received  confirmation   in   their   possessions   and  all 
dignities  with  royal  gifts." 

1101.  His  visit  to  England  seems  merely  to  have  been 
to  Henry's  court  to  tender  his  submission  to  the  new 
King,  for  we  find  him  immediately  afterwards  again 
in   Normandy  receiving   a   grant   of    the   castle    of 
Argentan  from  Duke  Robert.     (Orderic). 

July.     He  is  once  more  in  England,  and  welcomes 
Duke  Robert  upon  his  invasion.     (Orderic). 

1102.  Earl   Robert   is   summoned  to   court   to   answer 
charges  of  treason,  but  fortifies  Arundel,  Bridgnorth, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.       153 

and  Shrewsbury.  These,  however,  are  ultimately 
surrendered,  Earl  Robert  banished,  and  his  estates 
confiscated.  His  subsequent  career  will  be  found 
under  Wareham.  Orderic  comments  upon  the  fact 
that  his  sons  were  never  reinstated  in  their  father's 
English  estates. 

1108.     The  first  cathedral  now  consecrated. 

1114.  May  5th.  "  The  city  of  Chichester,  together  with 
the  principal  monastery — the  cathedral — was,  through 
culpable  carelessness,  destroyed  by  fire."  (Hoveden.) 

1123.  December  14th.  Death  of  Bishop  Ralph,  "in 
whose  place  Pelochin  was  appointed ;  a  great  rogue 
who  was  consequently  deposed."  (Huntingdon's 
letter  to  Walter.) 

1125.  Sigfred,  Abbot  of  G-lastonbury,  appointed  Bishop 
whilst  with  Henry  in  Normandy.  He  returns  and  is 
consecrated,  April  12th,  at  Lambeth.  (Huntingdon 
and  Florence.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— The  Bishop  still  owes  £44  15s.  Od. 
for  the  old  firma  of  the  Abbey  of  Glastonbury,  and 
receives  a  grant  of  46s.  8d.  from  the  revenue  of 
Sussex.  William  Pont  de  1'Arche  returns  the  accounts 
for  the  Honour  of  Arundel,  which  is  evidently  in  the 
King's  hands,  and  £22  7s.  8d.  is  spent  on  the  castle. 
Brand  the  moneyer  accounts  for  £20,  that  he  might 
not  be  "  disfactus "  with  the  other  moneyers.  He 
pays  £4  and  still  owes  £16,  and  the  sheriff  accounts 
for  one  mark  of  silver  from  "  the  fees  of  the  moneyers 
of  Chichester." 

The  Law  of  Athelstan  granted  one  moneyer  to  Chi- 
chester, but  no  coins  bearing  the  name  of  this  mint  are 
known  earlier  than  of  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II.  It  had 
then  acquired  three  moneyers  coining  at  a  time,  and  this 
number — though  only  one  appears  on  Harthacnut's  coins 
— seems  to  have  been  maintained  through  all  the  suc- 
ceeding Saxon  reigns. 

In  1068,  "William  I  granted  the  earldom  and  city  of 
Chichester  to  Roger  de  Montgomery,  and  therefore  the 
mint  also.  Hence  the  latter  does  not  come  under  the 
scope  of  Domesday.  The  mint  remained  the  Earl's  privi- 

VGL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  X 


154  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

lege  until  his  death  in  1095.  Earl  Hugh,  his  successor, 
probably  obtained  a  confirmation  charter  from  Rufus,  and 
on  his  death  in  1098,  Robert  de  Beleme  certainly  did. 
During  these  reigns  the  same  number  of  moneyers  was 
continued  under  the  Montgomerys. 

When  Henry  came  to  the  throne  Earl  Robert  was  in 
Normandy,  and  probably  did  not  attend  the  Court  to  pay 
his  homage  before  Christmas  1100  or  Easter  1101.  At  some 
time  in  1101  he  was  in  Normandy  again,  and  in  the 
summer  with  Duke  Robert  in  Hampshire.  Immediately 
after  this,  in  preparation  for  the  coming  struggle,  we  find 
him  surrounding  the  castle  of  Bridgnorth  with  a  lofty 
wall  (Florence),  and  then  came  his  great  rebellion,  his 
fall  and  banishment  in  1102.  So  it  does  not  appear  that 
he  was  at  Chichester  after  Henry's  accession,  nor,  with  the 
exception  of  the  more  than  doubtful  one  of  Tewkesbury, 
has  his  name  been  found  upon  any  English  charter  of 
this  reign.  He  was  Duke  Robert's  faithful  partisan 
throughout  his  life,  and  would  never  have  condescended 
to  issue  Henry's  money.  Therefore  no  coins  of  this  period 
appear  from  the  mint. 

On  the  confiscation  of  Robert  de  Bele'me's  honours  in 
1102,  the  city  and  mint  of  Chichester  fell  into  the  King's 
hands,  but  that  fact  no  more  constituted  the  latter  a  royal 
mint  than  it  gave  Chichester  the  privileges  of  a  royal  city. 
The  invariable  result  followed — the  mint  became  dormant, 
and  seems  to  have  remained  so  until  some  time  between 
1112  and  1114,  for  the  first  six  types  of  Henry's  reign  do 
not  appear  upon  its  coins.  The  question  arises  :  In  whom 
was  the  right  of  coinage  revived  in  1112-1114?  We 
must  now  look  forward  a  hundred  years,  when  we  find  that 
King  John  in  1204  ordered  that  the  Bishop's  coins  should 
continue  current  alone  in  this  city  until  money  should  be 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    Of    HENRY  I.       155 

struck  in  the  King's  mint ;  after  which  both  the  regal  and 
episcopal  money  should  be  current  together.  In  the  same 
year  William  Fitz  Otho — the  hereditary  die  engraver — 
was  directed  to  supply  to  the  Bishop  one  die  for  his  mint 
(probably  the  usual  confirmation  grant).  But  in  the 
following  year  the  King  granted  to  the  Bishop  two  of  his 
(the  King's)  dies  in  that  city,  and  the  mint  with  all  its 
appurtenances  and  liberties,  at  a  rent  of  thirty  marks  for 
one  year,  and  commanded  William  Fitz  Otho  to  deliver 
the  dies  accordingly. 

From  this  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  proper  number  of 
moneyers  at  Chichester  was  then  still  three>  but  prior  to 
1 205  two  of  them  had  been  dormant,  though  the  Bishop's 
money er  was  then  coining.  King  John  evidently  at  first 
intended  to  revive  the  two  moneyers  and  establish  a  royal 
mint,  but  he  thought  better  of  it,  perhaps  because  he  had 
no  precedent  for  converting  a  chartered  into  a  royal  mint, 
and  so  he  granted  the  remaining  two  moneyers  to  the 
Bishop,  thus  giving  him  the  whole  mint. 

From  1114  to  1204,  with  the  exception  of  two  com- 
paratively short  breaks,  we  have  a  sequence  of  coins  issued 
from  the  Chichester  mint.  During  the  whole  of  that 
period,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  coins,  there  waa 
never  more  than  one  moneyer  coming  here  at  any 
time,  and  as  we  know  that  prior  to  1205  there  was  only 
the  Bishop's  moneyer  coining  here,  it  is  fair  inference  that 
all  these  intermediate  coins  were  struck  by  the  Bishops  of 
Chichester,  and  that  the  two  nominal  moneyers'  dies 
remained  dormant  from  the  date  of  the  confiscation  of 
Robert  de  Beleme's  privileges  in  1102  to  the  year  1205. 

In  May,  1114,  the  city  and  cathedral  were  destroyed  by 
fire,  but  we  are  told  by  several  of  our  historians  that  by  the 
munificence  of  King  Henry,  who  was  his  personal  friend, 


156  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

Bishop  Ralph  immediately  rebuilt  the  cathedral.  The 
Bishop  already  owned  a  considerable  portion  of  the  city, 
but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  ever  had  a  moneyer  in  it 
prior  to  about  this  date.  But  from  1114  to  the  exact 
date  of  his  death  we  have  one  moneyer  coining  here  in 
every  type,  and  only  one  type  missing.  The  inference, 
therefore,  is  that  Henry,  to  recoup  his  friend  for  the  mis- 
fortune of  the  fire,  granted  him  a  charter  of  perhaps  the 
remainder  of  the  city,  and  in  any  case  gave  him  the  privi- 
lege of  one  moneyer  at  Chichester,  for  the  most  natural 
method  of  benefiting  the  Bishop  would  be  by  charter  of 
some  of  the  privileges  so  recently  confiscated.  The  argu- 
ment that  these  coins  were  ecclesiastical  in  their  origin 
seems  supported  by  the  annulets  which  appear  as  orna- 
ments upon  some,  if  not  all,  of  them,  for  all  have  not 
been  examined.  (See  under  Beading,  Peterborough, 
York,  &c.) 

The  only  types,  therefore,  known  to  us  of  the  Chichester 
mint  during  this  reign  are  267  (1112-1114),  266  (1114- 
1116),  264  (1116-1119),  and  IV.  (1121-1123).  In  1123 
Bishop  Ralph  died,  and  perhaps  the  remainder  of  the  city 
was  granted  to  Queen  Adeliza  with  the  Honour  of  Arundel, 
for  her  second  husband,  William  de  Albini,  as  early  as 
1141  styled  himself  Earl  of  Sussex,  and  shortly  afterwards 
Earl  of  Chichester,  as  proved  by  Mr.  Round  in  "  Geoffrey 
de  Manderitte"  Chichester  was  not  in  the  King's  hands 
in  1130,  or  its  revenues  would  have  been  credited  in  the 
Pipe  Roll. 

The  entry  in  the  Roll  concerning  Brand,  the  moneyer, 
is  interesting,  as  his  name  appears  on  the  Chichester  coins 
of  types  267  (1112-1114),  266  (1114-1116),  and  IV  (1121- 
1123),  but  not  when  the  mint  re-opens  in  Stephen's  reign. 
Just  as  the  Bishop's  debt  for  the  old /mo  of  the  Abbey 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  1.       157 

of  Glastoubury  has  been  brought  forward  from  the  year 
1125,  so  Brand's  fine  may  similarly  be  from  the  same  year. 
He  is  paying  it  by  instalments,  this  year  £4,  and  we  find, 
when  in  later  times  we  have  a  sequence  of  the  Rolls,  that 
such  fines  were  often  carried  on  for  several  years.  He 
still  owes  £16  that  he  should  not  be  "  disfactus  with 
the  other  money  era."  Surely  this  means  "  with  the  other 
moneyers"  at  the  great  Inquisition  of  Christmas,  1125. 
Brand,  as  a  servant  of  the  Bishop,  would  no  doubt  be 
slightly  educated  and  able  to  plead  "  benefit  of  clergy." 
Hence  as  the  law  then  was  he  would  be  released  with  a  fine 
only,  but  nevertheless  disqualified  from  further  office.  In 
the  Pipe  Rolls  of  Henry  II,  we  find  several  payments  for 
"disfaciendo"  false  moneyers,  and  therefore  this  word  may 
be  accepted  as  the  term  for  that  mutilation  which  is  de- 
scribed under  the  accounts  of  the  1125  Inquisition.  This 
conviction  or  the  death  of  Bishop  Ralph  seems  to  have 
stopped  coinage  here  during  the  remainder  of  the  reign. 

The  next  entry  in  the  1130  Roll  is  that  William  de 
Pont  de  1'Arche,  as  sheriff,  "  returns  an  account  of  one 
mark  of  silver  '  de  Hoibz '  of  the  moneyers  of  Chichester." 
The  words  in  italics  having  the  curved  contraction  over 
the  o,  if  correctly  transcribed,  probably  stand  for  de  honor- 
ibus,  not  de  hominibus,  nor  would  the  latter  reading  be  so 
intelligible.  Honos,  therefore,  must  be  construed  in  its 
meaning  of  fee  or  reward,  as  "  honos  medici  "  for  example, 
and  so  we  have  the  sheriff  accounting  for  the  fees  of 
moneyers  of  whom  we  have  no  record.  It  is  also  similarly 
used  elsewhere  in  the  Roll,  and  whichever  meaning  is 
intended  is  immaterial  to  the  main  point  of  the  passage, 
which  is,  that  other  moneyers  than  Brand  are  mentioned. 
But  this  particular  entry  is  followed  by  the  note  that  the 
sheriff  "has  freed  (or  passed)  the  account  in  the  Treasury 


158 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


and  is  quit,"  not,  as  is  usual,  that  he  has  paid  it  into  the 
Treasury.  We  have  over  and  over  again  similar  entries 
of  payments  made  by  persons  or  cities  and  immediately 
returned  to  them  by  the  King's  writ.  The  explanation, 
therefore,  seems  to  be  that  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  on 
record  that  the  two  moneyers  of  Chichester  were  only 
dormant,  not  extinct,  the  sheriff  on  the  one  side  debits 
himself  with  their  fees,  and  on  the  other  credits  himself 
without  payment.  A  system  of  account  not  unknown 
to-day.  (See  the  "  Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer  "  upon  this 
distinction,  and  compare  the  similar  Domesday  entry 
under  Colchester,  page  162.) 

The  Chichester  coinage  ceases  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III. 


COINS. 


ON  EIEE 


4-KENRI  EEX 


J.  Verity.  An  annulet  in  the  centre  of  the 
reverse  cross.  The  moneyer  is  probably 
from  Hastings,  where  the  family  had  long 
been  moneyers.  [Mr.  Verity  has  for  twenty 
years  contributed  the  readings  of  his  Norman 
coins  for  this  work.] 

.  .  .  END  ON  EIDI 

Bari  find.  The  moneyer  is  probably  BREND 
or  BRAND. 


266 


267 


•fr BRAND  0  EIEEosR  :       .frriENRIEVao  RE*  A     IV 

British  Museum.  [Fig.  P  and  PI.  V,  No.  6.] 
Engraved  Num.  Chron.,  1881,  iii.  2.  From  the 
Montagu,  1896,  £5,  and  Toplis  collections  and 
the  Nottingham  find.  Two  annulets  on  the  breast. 

4.GODPINE  :  ON  :  EIEE  :  *I\ENRIEVS  RE  :   264 

Capt.  R.  J.  H.  Douglas.      [PI.  IV,  No.  10.] 

A  GODPINE  coined  here  under  Rufus.     Annu- 
lets on  the  crown. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       159 


COLCHESTER  (ESSEX). 

COLNECEASTER,   CoLENCEASTRE,   CoLECEASTEA ;    Domesday   and 
Pipe  Roll,  COLECESTKA  ;  Charters,  COLCESTEIA,  &c. 

The  origin  of  this  ancient  town  is  lost  in  antiquity ;  we 
have,  however,  numismatic  evidence  of  its  having  been  one 
of  the  principal  Celtic  cities,  and  a  reference  to  Sir  John 
Evans'  Coins  of  the  Ancient  Britons  discloses  that  of  all  the 
districts  in  England,  this  is  the  most  prolific  in  the  dis- 
covery of  those  memorials.  Few  towns  in  England  retain 
more  vestiges  of  Roman  architecture,  and  even  the  walls 
of  the  castle  are  said,  as  to  nearly  one-third  of  their 
fabric,  to  be  composed  of  brick,  tiles,  and  materials  dating 
from  that  period,  and  used  again  in  their  construction. 
Alternately  Saxon  and  Danish,  Colchester  suffered  the 
vicissitudes  of  siege  and  rapine.  In  921  Edward  the 
Elder,  after  the  town  had  been  stormed,  repaired  the 
walls  where  they  were  broken  down.  Mr.  I.  C.  Gould 
points  out  that  the  walls  of  Colchester  which  are  men- 
tioned in  the  early  chronicles,  would  be  the  Roman  walls 
still  utilized  for  defence,  and  which  even  now  in  places 
rise  many  feet  above  ground.  Many  times  has  Colchester 
suffered  a  siege,  and  but  once  withstood  it.  But  the  most 
peaceful  period  of  its  bygone  history  was  during  the  two 
centuries  immediately  succeeding  the  Conquest,  when  it 
plays  no  part  in  the  turmoils  of  England. 

1075.  Approximate  date  of  the  foundation  of  the  Norman 
keep. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — The  number  of  houses,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Bound's  calculation,  was  450.  There 
were  two  churches  and  four  mills.  The  town  was  a 
royal  burg,  and  in  the  Confessor's  time  the  burgesses 
farmed  it  of  the  King  at  an  annual  payment  of 


160  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

£15  5s.  3d.,  which  included  a  sum  of  £4  from  the 
moneyers.  Now  the  burg  returns  £80,  and  certain 
customs  to  the  King.  "And  in  addition  to  this  the 
burgesses  of  Colchester  and  of  Maldon  render  £20  for 
the  mint."  "And  this  Waleran  fixed,  and  they  plead 
the  King's  allowance  which  he  made  them  of  £10, 
and  Walkelin  holding  from  the  Bishop  claims  £40 
from  them."  Eudo  Dapifer,  though  several  times 
mentioned  under  the  county,  had  then  but  a  small 
holding  in  Colchester  itself.  Otto  Aurifaber  holds  8 
houses  here — the  site  of  which  is  still  known  as 
"  Goldsmith's  field." 

1091  ?  William  II  by  charter  grants  the  "town,  keep 
and  castle  "  of  Colchester  to  Eudo  Dapifer. 

1101.  Henry  I  by  charter  confirms  to  Eudo  "  the  city  of 
Colchester  and  the  keep  and  castle  and  all  the 
defences  of  that  city,  and  all  things  which  appertain 
to  it,  with  all  the  advantages  that  my  father  and 
brother  and  I  possessed  in  it,  and  with  all  those 
customs  which  my  father  and  brother  and  I  ever  had 
in  it.  And  this  grant  was  made  at  Westminster  at 
the  first  Christmas  after  the  treaty  of  my  brother 
Count  Robert  between  me  and  him."  (See  Mr. 
Round's  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville.) 

1120.  March  1st.  Eudo  died  at  his  castle  of  Preaux  in 
Normandy.  (Cotton  MS.). 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Hamo  de  St.  Clare,  on  behalf  of 
the  King,  collects  ihejirma  of  the  city  of  Colchester, 
pays  £38  16s.  2d.,  and  owes  £1  3s.  lOd.  (total  £40). 
He  also  accounts  for  three  years'  arrears  of  the 
auxilium  of  the  city,  but  the  King  remits  to  "  all  the 
burgesses  of  Colchester  100  shillings."  Hamo  also 
accounts  for  £190  3s.  in  respect  of  the  jinna  of  the 
lands  of  Eudo.  "  Edward  "  accounts  for  36s.  8d.  for 
a  treasury  plea,  pays  20s.,  and  owes  16s.  8d. 

In  the  Coins  of  the  Ancient  Britons  Sir  John  Evans 
describes  the  coins  of  Cunobelinus  (circa  A.D.  40),  bearing 
the  name  of  Camulodunum,  the  ancient  name  for  Col- 
chester, and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  that  chief's 
principal  city.  Colchester  had  a  Roman  mint,  and  it 
is  probable  that  coins  were  struck  here  under  the  early 
Saxon  kings,  bearing,  however,  no  name  to  distinguish 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OP    HENRY   I.       161 

them.  But  the  next  record  we  have  of  the  mint  is  in 
the  Law  of  Athelstan,  which  assigns  three  moneyers 
to  Colchester,  two  being  for  the  King,  and  one  for  the 
bishop  (of  London).  Owing  to  the  Danish  troubles  this 
grant  seems  to  have  remained  a  dead  letter  until  the  reign 
of  Ethelred  II,  for  we  have  no  Colchester  coins  until 
then.  From  that  time  until  the  close  of  the  Saxon  rule, 
coins  of  every  king — with  the  exception  of  Harthacnut — 
are  issued  here. 

Domesday  tells  us  that,  in  the  time  of  the  Confessor, 
the  town  was  a  royal  burg  farmed,  together  with  the 
mint,  to  the  burgesses  at  £15  5s.  3d.,  of  which  £4  was 
contributed  by  the  money ers.  Between  that  time  and 
1086  there  is  evidently  a  change.  Waleran,  who  is  re- 
ferred to,  was  perhaps  the  King's  castellan  when  the 
castle  was  founded,  and  it  would  appear  that  William  had 
confiscated  the  Saxon  charter  to  the  burgesses,  but  upon 
Waleran's  intercession  had  regranted  it  to  them  at  an 
increased  rent.  They  now  pay  to  the  King  £80,  and 
certain  customs  for  their  burg,  and  £20  jointly  with  the 
burgesses  of  Maldon  for  the  mint  ("  moneta,"  in  the 
singular).  Of  this,  Walkelin,  holding  from  the  bishop, 
claims  £40  from  them.  Hitherto  this  has  been  passed  as 
unintelligible,  but  if  we  assess  the  value  of  the  customs  at 
£20,  we  have  a  total  firma  of  £120.  So  the  Bishop  of 
London  was  evidently  entitled  to  the  tertius  denarius  of  the 
burg,  and  therefore,  through  his  representative  Walkelin, 
claimed  £40.  Perhaps  this  explains  the  mistake  of 
"  Walkelin,  '  Bishop '  of  London,"  in  a  charter  of  Rufus 
to  Bermondsey  Abbey. 

Under  the  Law  of  Athelstan,  the  bishop  had  what  was 
practically  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  mint,  and  so,  perhaps, 
that  of  the  town  too  ;  but,  as  Mr.  Round  would  point  out, 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  Y 


162  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

this  must  not  be  confused  with  an  earl's  third  penny  of 
a  county. 

The  assessment  of  Colchester  and  Maldon  jointly  for 
their  mint  suggests  something  similar  to  the  conditions  of 
the  mints  of  Barnstaple,  Totness,  and  Lydford,  as  de- 
scribed under  Barnstaple,  and  so  Colchester  and  Maldon 
probably  issued  money  at  either  town  alternately,  and  if 
only  one  mint  was  in  operation  during  the  year,  the  King 
remitted  £10,  but  if  both,  then  each  town  paid  £10,  and 
so  £20  was  retained  in  the  Survey  as  the  nominal  firma 
from  the  burgesses. 

This  is  borne  out  by  the  coins  we  have  of  these  two 
mints,  issued  during  the  reigns  of  William  I-II,  for  the 
types  of  Maldon  fill  up  most  of  the  blanks  of  Colchester. 

In  1091  there  is  a  further  change.  But  this  date  must 
not  be  accepted  too  strictly,  as  Henry  I's  charter  has  been 
confused  with  William's,  and  so  the  date  1091  was  accepted 
because  it  was  that  of  the  treaty  between  Rufus  and  Duke 
Robert,  although  the  former  contains  the  words,  "  Sicut 
Pater  meus  et  Frater  et  ego,"  referring  to  William 
I,  II,  and  Henry  I.  Colchester  is  granted  to  Eudo 
Dapifer,  and  there  is  no  ground  for  the  argument  that 
he  was  merely  the  King's  castellan,  for  the  wording 
of  the  charter  grants  him  the  town  and  all  its  privi- 
leges. Hence  he  acquired  the  mint,  and  if  the  Maldon 
mint  was  under  Colchester,  as  Domesday  infers,  then 
that  of  Maldon  also.  Again,  as  was  the  result  in  the 
case  of  Barnstaple  and  Lydford,  he  at  once  finally  dis- 
continues the  minor  mint  of  Maldon,  and  coins  only  at 
Colchester.  Also,  as  at  Barnstaple,  and  for  the  same 
reasons  as  are  given  there,  the  staff  of  moneyers  is  reduced 
from  three  to  one. 

This  brings  us  to  Henry's  accession  in  1100.     It  will 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.       163 

be  noticed  that  the  King's  confirmation  charter  to  Eudo 
is  dated  from  Westminster,  at  the  first  Christmas  after 
his  treaty  with  Duke  Robert  of  Normandy.  Henry  held 
his  Christmas  Court  at  Westminster  in  both  1101  and 
1103>,  and  therefore  the  question  arises,  to  which  treaty 
did  he  refer.  The  presence,  however,  of  the  name  of  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester  amongst  the  witnesses  proves  the 
date  to  have  been  Christmas,  1101-2,  for  he  was  in  exile 
in  1103. 

From  Christmas,  1101,  to  about  the  year  1107,  Eudo 
was  in  England,  and  although  one  would  scarcely  expect 
to  find  type  251  in  evidence,  which  at  the  date  of  the 
charter  had  only  nine  months  to  run,  type  254  (1102- 
1104)  ought  certainly  to  be  forthcoming,  but  as  yet  it 
remains  missing.  The  next  type,  however,  we  have — 
namely,  the  PAX  type  253  (1104-1106),  which,  like 
Eudor»  charter,  commemorates  the  treaties  with  Duke 
Robert  of  1101  and  1103. 

Of  the  reign  of  Henry  I  there  are  no*  fewer  than  thirty 
English  charters  which  bear  the  name  of  Eudo  as  a 
witness.  Eight  of  these  are  dated  and  are  all  prior  to 
the  year  1108,  the  latest  being  of  the  eighth  year  of  the 
reign — i.e.  Aug.  1107 — Aug.  110&.  Every  one  of  the 
remaining  twenty-two  by  internal  evidence — e.g.,  the 
appearance  upon  it  of  such  names  as  Robert  Fitz  Hamon, 
Maurice,  Bishop  of  London,  and  Roger  Bigod — must  also 
have  been  granted  before  1108.  We  have  thus  the 
remarkable  fact  that  the  name  of  the  Steward  of  the 
King's  Household  suddenly,  and  completely,  disappears 
from  our  English  charters  practically  in  the  same  year  as 
coinage  is  discontinued  at  Colchester  for  an  interval  of 
twenty  years. 

The   explanation  of  this  is  not  difficult.     It  was  not 


164  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

until  the  Battle  of  Tinchebrai,  in  September,  1106,  that 
Henry  acquired  possession  of  Normandy,  nor  was  his 
possession  assured  until  the  close  of  the  following  year. 
But  from  that  date  to  the  death  of  Eudo,  in  1120,  the 
King  spent  two-thirds  of  his  time  in  the  Duchy,  and  as 
he  had  two  Royal  Dapifers,  Eudo  and  Hamon,  he  retained 
Hamon  in  England,  who  continues  to  witness  our  English 
charters,  and  appointed  Eudo  to  Normandy.  Eudo  pro- 
bably left  England  in  1107,  for  he  witnesses  the  Rouen 
Charter  to  Bermondsey  Abbey  soon  after  that  date,  and 
continued  in  Normandy,  where  his  name  now  appears  as  a 
witness  to  several  charters  until  his  death  at  the  Castle  of 
Preaux,  in  1120.  This  explains  the  passage  in  the  Empress 
Matilda's  charter  to  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  "  Et  do  ei 
totam  terram  quce  fuit  Eudonis  Dapiferi  in  Normannia  et 
Dapiferatum  ipsius  "  (Round).  The  Cottonian  MS.  History 
of  Colchester  Abbey  also  implies  that  Eudo  was  Dapifer  in 
Normandy,  that  he  died  there,  and  that  his  widow  never 
returned  to  this  country. 

Eudo  left  no  son,  and,  as  Mr.  Round  points  out  in 
Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  it  may  be  assumed  that  he  died 
without  any  issue,  for  his  vast  estates  reverted  to  the 
Crown.  Thus  Colchester  once  more  fell  into  the  King's 
possession,  and,  as  usual,  the  mint  remained  dormant  until 
the  town  was  regranted  by  him. 

In  the  1130  Roll  we  have  evidence  that  the  burgesses 
are  once  more  paying  their  firma  to  the  King,  but  it  has 
now  been  reduced  to  £40.  This  tells  us  that  at  some  time 
between  1120  and  1129  Henry  had  regranted  their  ancient 
charter  to  the  burgesses  to  farm  their  city,  as  in  the  time 
of  the  Confessor,  but  at  a  rent  of  £40.  It  tells  us  a  little 
more,  for  by  the  entry  of  three  years'  arrears  of  auxilium 
we  have  the  date  of  the  charter  thrown  back  to  1125-1126, 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       165 

or  the  very  date  assigned  to  the  similar  charters  to  Barn- 
staple  and  other  places  presently  mentioned. 

This  explains  the  next  types  issued  from  Colchester,  for 
the  burgesses  have  thus  once  more  recovered  their  ancient 
privilege  of  coinage,  and  immediately  issue  265  (1126- 
1128),  which  is  followed  by  262  (1128-1131). 

The  last  type  of  the  reign,  255,  however,  does  not  appear, 
and  to  explain  its  absence,  as  we  have  no  materials  for  the 
history  of  Colchester  between  1130  and  1141,  we  must  refer 
to  Matilda's  charter  of  the  latter  date,  from  which  we  gather 
that  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  who  had  succeeded  his  father 
during  the  issue  of  type  262,  had  claimed  the  whole  of 
the  lands  in  England  which  formerly  belonged  to  Eudo 
Dapifer,  as  his  collateral  heir.  Thus  again  the  history 
of  Colchester  strikingly  resembles  that  of  Barnstaple,  and 
probably  this  claim  in  a  like  manner  caused  the  revocation 
of  the  burgesses'  charter. 

We  have,  however,  evidence  that  the  actual  date  when 
the  mint  was  discontinued  was  at  Michaelmas,  1129.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  when,  in  1086,  the  fir  ma  of  the 
burg  was  £80,  the  share  of  the  Colchester  mint,  excluding 
Maldon,  was  £10  ;  so  now,  in  1129-30,  when  the^rwa  is 
£40,  the  mint's  share  would  be  only  £5.  Hence  as  the 
Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  out  of  the  firma  of  £40  one 
hundred  shillings  were  returned  to  the  burgesses  in  1130, 
we  may  assume  that  this  reduction  of  £5  was,  as  in  the 
similar  instances  of  Dorchester  and  Tamworth  (which  see) 
in  return  for  the  surrender  of  the  dies. 

That  the  firma  of  £40  paid  by  the  burgesses  did  in- 
clude the  privilege  of  coining  is  quite  clear,  for  our  coins 
tell  us  that  the  mint  of  Colchester  was  discontinued  during 
the  issue  of  the  first  type  of  Henry  II,  and  the  Pipe  Roll 
for  1157-1158  shows  this  to  have  occurred  in  that  year. 


166 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


For  the  fir  ma  paid  by  the  town  was  still  £40,  but  sixty 
shillings  of  it  was  returned  to  the  burgesses  "  in  defectu 
monetariorum  de  uno  anno." 

The  entry  in  the  1130  Roll  in  which  Edward  accounts 
for  a  balance  now  standing  at  thirty-six  shillings  and 
eightpence,  which  he  is  paying  by  instalments,  for  a  con- 
viction upon  a  treasury  plea,  supplies  the  missing  letters 
to  the  moneyer's  name,  "  »j«AED[PAE]D,"  upon  type  265 
(1126-1128),  and  explains  why  it  does  not  appear  upon 
the  current  type  262. 

After  an  abeyance  of  nearly  five  hundred  years  the 
Colchester  mint  was  revived  for  a  short  period  during  its 
famous  siege  in  the  Civil  War. 

COINS. 


*A[EDPAE]D  :  ON  :  EOLEE 

Whitbourn  Sale,  1869.     As  to  this  moneyer, 
see  above. 


265 


*AED  .  .  .  D  :  ON  •  EOLEE 
J.  Pollexfen. 


*I\ENEIEVS  E ;      265 


:  ON  •  EOLEEES         *I\ENRIEVS  BE  :   265 

British  Museum.  From  Durant  Sale,  1847, 
£1  17s.,  pierced.  ^ELFSI,  probably  the 
father,  coined  here  under  the  Conqueror. 


ON:OLE 


I  HENEI  EXI 


253 


British  Museum.  From  the  Cuff  Sale,  1854, 
£2  6s.  The  moneyer's  name  stands  for 
S^EGEIM,  mentioned  as  a  burgess  of  Col- 
chester in  Domesday. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.     167 

•frPVLFPI :  0  .   EOL  .  .  *hEN  .  .  .  VS  E  •     262 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 
The  moneyer's  name  is  a  contraction  of 
PVLFPINE,  and  he  is  probably  the  son  of 
Wulfwine,  monetarius  of  Colchester  men- 
tioned in  Domesday ;  coins  of  whom  we 
have  bearing  both  forms  of  the  name, 
PVLFPI  and  PVLFPINE,  of  Harold  II 
and  William  I. 


.frPVLPI  :  0  .     .  .  LE  .frhENK 262 

Hunterian  Museum.     The  same  money er. 


.    ON  EOLEE  266 

Sale,  May,  1855. 
Tyssen  Sale,  1802.  265 


DORCHESTER  (DORSETSHIRE). 

DOBNECEASTER,    DoBNCEASTER,    DoRCEASTER,  DoRNWARACEASTER ; 

Domesday,  DORECESTRE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  DORECESTRIA. 

From  the  Celtic  fortifications  and  tumuli  around  Dor- 
chester it  was  evidently  a  great  tribal  centre  prior  to  the 
Roman  invasion  of  Britain,  and  under  the  rule  of  the 
Legions  the  town  was  the  famous  station  of  Durnovaria, 
and  the  Dunium  of  Ptolemy.  Its  importance  at  that 
period  is  not  only  evidenced  in  history,  but  also  in 
the  remarkable  vestiges  of  Roman  occupation  still  remain- 
ing. Our  chroniclers  are  nearly  silent  as  to  Dorchester 
in  Saxon  days,  although  we  know  from  a  charter  of 
Egbert,  in  833,  that  it  was  then  a  royal  town.  The  men 
of  Dorset,  however,  are  recorded  as  more  than  holding 
their  own  against  the  Danes  on  several  occasions,  and 


168  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

perhaps  it  was  owing  to  their  stubborn  defence  that  the 
ancient  burg  kept  the  noiseless  tenor  of  its  way. 

1066.  Immediately  after    the   Conquest  William  would 
appear  from  Domesday  to  have  appointed  one  Hugh 
to  be  Sheriff  of  Dorchester. 

1067.  "  At  that  time  the  West  Saxons  of  Dorset  and 
Somerset,  and   their  neighbours,  made  an  attack  on 
Montacute,  but  by  God's  providence  they  were  foiled 
in  their  attempt ;  for  the  men  of  Winchester,  TJondon, 
and  Salisbury,  under  the  command  of  Geoffrey,  Bishop 
of  Coutances,  came  upon  them  by  surprise,  slew  some 
of  them,  and,  mutilating  a  number  of  the  prisoners, 
put  the  rest  to  flight."     (Orderic  under  1069.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of  the  Confessor 
there  were  172  houses  in  Dorchester.  These  were 
rated  for  all  the  King's  service,  and  paid  geld  for  10 
hides,  to  wit  to  the  use  of  the  King's  "  housecarles  " 
1  mark  of  silver,  except  the  customs  relating  to  the 
firma  noctis.  At  that  time  there  were  two  moneyers, 
each  of  whom  paid  1  mark  of  silver  to  the  King  [as  a 
firma],  and  20s.  whenever  the  money  was  changed. 
Now  there  are  88  houses,  and  100  (have  been)  entirely 
destroyed  since  the  time  of  Hugh  the  Sheriff.  The 
King  (William  I)  holds  Dorchester,  and  King  Edward 
held  it. 

1180.  Pipe  Eoll  notes. — "The  burgesses"  pay  £11  in 
auzilium,  but  40s.  is  remitted  by  the  King's  writ 
in  pardon  "  to  the  burgesses  of  Shaftesbury  because  of 
their  poverty,  [and]  40s.  to  the  burgesses  of  Dor- 
chester." 

According  to  one  copy  of  Athelstan's  Law,  a  moneyer 
was  granted  to  Dorchester,  but  the  authority  is  doubtful, 
and  the  explanation  of  it  is  probably  a  graphical  error 
for  Rochester.  The  earliest  coins  we  have  bearing  the 
name  of  this  mint  are  of  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  and  upon 
these  only  one  moneyer's  name  appears  ;  nor  does  it  seem 
certain  that  more  than  one  at  a  time  ever  coined  here 
until  the  days  of  the  Confessor.  The  names  also  of 
Canute,  Harold  I,  Harthacnut,  and  the  Confessor,  appear 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.      169 

upon  the  coins,  but  that  of  Harold  II  is  missing.  Dor- 
chester, however,  was  never  a  prolific  mint,  although  we 
have  some  half  dozen  of  the  Confessor's  types  represented 
by  its  coins,  and  upon  some  of  them  the  names  of  two 
moneyers  appear. 

Immediately  after  the  Conquest  the  men  of  Dorset,  in- 
cluding, no  doubt,  the  burgesses  of  Dorchester,  joined  in 
the  Exeter  rising,  and  attacked  Montacute  in  Somerset. 
This  brought  destruction  upon  themselves,  for  William, 
in  his  march  upon  Exeter,  ravaged  the  whole  country  in 
the  west.  Out  of  172  houses,  "  100  have  been  entirely 
destroyed  since  the  time  of  Sheriff  Hugh,"  is  the  mournful 
passage  in  Domesday  which  can  only  refer  to  that  raid, 
and  even  then,  twenty  years  afterwards,  only  16  houses 
had  been  rebuilt.  This  indicates  how  complete  was  the 
devastation,  and  how  slow  the  recovery. 

The  town  was  the  King's,  and,  therefore,  the  mint 
also.  Before  the  catastrophe,  we  are  told  there  were  here 
two  moneyers  who  paid  one  mark  of  silver  to  Edward  the 
Confessor,  and  twenty  shillings  whenever  the  money  was 
changed.  In  the  year  1086,  however,  Domesday  is  silent 
as  to  their  then  existence,  and  so  the  mint  must  either 
have  been  discontinued  or  farmed  with  the  town  to  the 
burgesses,  for  Dorchester  remained  a  royal  burg. 

If,  for  a  moment,  we  glance  forward  to  the  records 
of  the  time  of  the  Plantagenets,  we  find  that  Edward  III 
caused  an  Inquisition  to  be  made  "as  to  how  much  the 
burgesses  of  Dorchester,  or  those  to  whom  the  said  town 
was  demised  by  our  progenitors,  or  us,  at  a  certain  firma 
per  annum,  were  accustomed  to  render  to  our  said  pro- 
genitors." The  enquiry  only  extended  back  to  the  sixth 
year  of  Henry  III,  when  ihejirma  of  the  burgesses  was 
£16,  but  it  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  burgesses  then 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  Z 


170  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

held  their  town  in  fee  farm  by  ancient  custom.  It 
is  true  that,  for  a  time,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  it  was 
part  of  the  territory  of  Queen  Eleanor ;  but  this  was  an  ex- 
ception, and  would  merely  change  the  recipient  of  the/r^w. 

The  destruction  of  the  town  seems  clearly  to  have 
occurred  in  the  West  Country  rising  of  1067,  and  no 
doubt  it  was  then  that  the  moneyers  were  discontinued, 
perhaps  partly  as  a  punishment  to  the  burgesses,  and 
partly  because  the  ruined  town  was  too  poor  to  profitably 
maintain  them.  But  shortly  before  the  date  of  Domesday 
the  mint  was  revived,  and  this  was,  no  doubt,  owing  to  a 
charter  farming  the  town  and  mint  to  the  burgesses,  for 
from  that  time  they  issued  coinage  occasionally,  at  least, 
until  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Rufus. 

Dorchester  plays  no  part  in  the  general  history  of 
Henry  I's  reign,  and  all  that  we  then  know  of  it  is  learnt 
from  the  Pipe  Roll,  and  from  its  coins.  The  Roll  tells  us 
that,  in  1129-30,  the  burgesses  were  paying  auxilium,  and 
therefore  at  that  time  held  their  town,  but  that  they  were 
remitted  forty  shillings  because  of  their  poverty.  This 
shows  that  the}''  had  not  even  yet  recovered  from  the 
destruction  of  1067,  and  so  coinage  would  then  be  of  little 
profit  in  a  neighbourhood  so  surrounded  by  prolific  mints. 

If,  however,  there  was  a  time  when  a  minor  mint  would 
be  more  profitable  than  at  another,  it  was  that  immedi- 
ately following  the  great  Inquisition  of  the  moneyers  at 
Winchester  in  1125,  when  so  many  of  them  were  dis- 
qualified. This,  too,  seems  to  be  the  year  when  Henry 
granted  the  cities  or  towns  and  mints  of  Barnstaple, 
Colchester,  and  other  places  throughout  the  country,  at 
firma,  to  the  citizens  or  burgesses,  and  so,  bearing  in 
mind  the  evidence  of  the  inquisition  of  Edward  III,  it 
may  be  surmised  that,  in  1125  or  1126,  Henry  for  the  first 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY    I.      171 

time  during  his  reign  "  demised  the  town  of  Dorchester 
to  the  burgesses  at  a  certain  firma  per  annum." 

Be  this  as  it  may,  his  coinage  here  commences  with 
type  265  (1126-1128),  and  is  continued  in  type  262 
(1128-1131).  During  the  issue  of  the  latter  type  it 
ceases  for  ever,  and  this  occurred  in  the  actual  year  of  the 
Roll  1129-30,  before  type  262  had  been  long  in  circula- 
tion. The  reason  for  this  assertion  is  disclosed  by  the 
entry  in  the  Roll  of  the  return  to  the  burgesses  of  40s. 
from  the  exchequer  by  the  King's  writ  in  pardon  "pro 
paupertate  eorum."  A  similar  expression,  but  returning 
25s.,  occurs  in  the  same  Roll  in  the  case  of  the  burgesses 
of  Tamworth,  and  their  mint  also  was  closed  for  ever 
during  the  issue  of  type  262,  and  therefore  also  in  1129-30. 
(See  Tamworth.)  The  explanation  why  40s.,  and  not  the 
whole  of  their  auxilium,  was  returned  to  Dorchester,  is 
this.  Under  the  custom  recorded  by  Domesday,  40s.  had 
to  be  paid  for  the  dies  "whenever  the  money  was 
changed."  The  money  had  been  changed  in  1128,  on 
the  introduction  of  type  262,  and  so,  as  the  burgesses 
were  too  poor  to  continue  their  mint,  they  now  returned 
the  dies,  and  the  exchequer  remitted  to  them  in  1129 
what  they  had  paid  in  the  previous  year.  The  passage, 
therefore,  also  proves  that  the  mint  was  at  that  time 
farmed  to  the  burgesses.  The  parallel  case  of  Colchester 
has  already  been  instanced  on  page  165. 

Osbern,  the  moiieyer  who  revived  the  mint  in  1126, 
was  probably  one  of  the  family  of  Osberns,  moneyers  of 
Salisbury  under  William  II  and  Henry  I. 

COINS. 

OSBERN  :  ON  :  DOEE  .  fiENR  ....  RE  262 

Watford  find.     As  to  the  moneyer,  see  above. 


172  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


.  N  :  DOEEEES  VS  EE         265 


British  Museum.  Presented  by  Mr.  D.  H. 
Haigh.  Owing  to  double  striking  tbe  name 
of  the  mint  appears  to  be  DOEEEEES. 


ON  DOEEEES5  265 


Late  Capt.  James.  From  a  MS.  note  by  Mr. 
Cuff  in  Mr.  W.  J.  Webster's  copy  of  Ruding. 

The  coin  of  type  251,  assigned  by  Mr.  Haw- 
kins to  this  mint,  is  the  British  Museum 
specimen  of  Dover. 


DOVER  (KENT). 

DOFERAN,    DOFEA,    DOFRIS,     DoRFBis,    DovEKiA ;    Domesday, 
DOVEBE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  DOVKA. 

The  position  of  Dover,  commanding  the  shortest  passage 
to  the  Continent,  has  been  fortified  as  a  protection  to  our 
commerce  and  to  our  coast  from  time  immemorial.  So 
strong  were  the  then  existing  earthworks  that  the  Romans 
were  content  to  depart  from  their  usual  custom,  and  accepted 
much  of  the  general  design  of  the  old  fortification  for  the 
plan  of  their  own  camp.  Hence,  entombed  in  the  walls 
of  Dover  Castle  are  the  materials  and  structure  of  nearly 
every  century  for  two  thousand  years  at  least.  On  the 
advent  of  the  Saxons,  its  proximity  to  the  Isle  of  Thanet 
would  render  Dover  one  of  their  earliest  possessions  in 
this  country,  and  under  them  it  continued  to  flourish  in 
importance  until,  in  the  reign  of  the  Confessor,  it  had 
become  the  chief  port  on  the  south  coast.  Edward  the 
Confessor  granted,  or  confirmed,  to  its  burgesses  a  charter 
of  incorporation  by  tenure  of  supplying  and  manning  20 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.      173 

ships  for  the  King's  fleet,  a  custom  which  in  later  times 
developed  into  the  confederation  of  the  "  Cinque  Ports." 

1066.  From  Hastings  the  Conqueror  marched  on  Dover, 
which,  although  "  the  position  was  thought  to  be  im- 
pregnable, the    castle  standing  on   the   summit  of  a 
steep   rock   overhanging  the   sea,   was    surrendered 
without  a  blow."     Nevertheless  the  Normans  looted 
and  burnt  the  town.     William,  however,  ordered  it 
to  be  rebuilt  at  his  own  cost,  and  spent  eight  days  in 
strengthening  the   fortifications   of  the  castle.     This 
would  be  Earl  Godwin's  stockade.     (Of.  Orderic.) 

1067.  William  grants  "  Dover  and  all  Kent  "  to  Odo, 
Bishop  of  Bayeux.     Orderic  calls  him  "  Earl  Palatine 
of  Kent."    In  consequence  of  a  private  feud,  Eustace, 
Count  of  Boulogne,  attacks  Dover,  but  is  repulsed  by 
the  garrison,  assisted  by  the  burgesses.     (Orderic.) 

1069.     In  like  manner  they  repel  an  attempted  landing  of 

the  Danish  fleet.     (Orderic.) 
1082.     The  fall  of  Odo,  who  is  imprisoned  at  Rouen  until 

the  King's  death.     (Orderic.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of  the  Confessor 
Dover  paid  £18,  of  which  Earl  Godwin  had  the  third 
penny.      The   burgesses   supplied   20   ships   to   the 
King's  fleet  for  15   days  in  every  year,  each  being 
manned  by  21  men.     The  customs  of  Dover  are  set 
out  in  detail  as  they  existed  "  when  King  William 
came  into  England."     In  that  year  "  the  town  itself 
was  burnt,"  and  on  that  account  it  was  impossible  to 
estimate  its  value  when  the  Bishop  of  Bayeux  received 
it.      Now  it   is   assessed  at  £40,   but   nevertheless 
pays  £'54,  namely,  £24  in  pennies,  which  are  [credited 
as  ?J  20  to  the  ounce,  to  the  King ;  £30  by  number 
to  the  Earl.     Dover  was  a  market  town,  and  had  a 
Guild  of  the  Burgesses,  but  the   mint  is  not  men- 
tioned. 

1087.  Odo   is   released  by  the   King   on  his  deathbed. 
(Orderic.)     Odo  does  not,  however,  appear  to  have 
regained  Dover,  for  the  castle  is  now  held  by  tenure 
of  knight  service  by  eight  Kentish  knights. 

1101.  King  Henry  orders  the  boat-carles  (captains  of  the 
ships  of  Dover,  Sandwich,  Hastings,  Hythe,  and 
Romney)  to  protect  the  coast  against  Duke  Robert's 
landing,  but  the  latter  "so  tampered  with  the  fidelity 
of  some  of  them  by  promises  of  various  kinds,  that 


174  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

throwing  off  their  allegiance  they  deserted  to  him  and 
became  his  pilots  to  England."  (Florence.) 

1121-2.  At  some  time  during  his  reign,  probably  now, 
Henry  granted  the  castle  of  Dover  to  Robert,  Earl  of 
Gloucester,  and  he  in  turn  appointed  his  relative, 
Walkelin  Maminot  castellan.  (Of.  Orderic.) 

1130.  Pipe  Boll  notes. — The  "firma  of  Dover,"  including 
the  ship  money  and  customs,  is  £93  19s.  10d.,  partly 
by  number  and  partly  blanched,  or,  say,  £90  net.  The 
burgesses  owe  60  marks  of  silver  upon  a  plea  of 
Henry  de  Port  (Justiciary). 

When  our  coins  tell  us  that  the  mints  of  Dover, 
Hastings,  Romney,  and  Sandwich,  all  sprang  into  exist- 
ence during  the  great  Danish  invasions  of  the  reign  of 
Ethelred  II,  and  when  Domesday  tells  us  that  the  bur- 
gesses held  most  of  these  towns  under  the  custom  of 
supplying  ships  to  the  King's  navy,  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  that  the  King  then  released  his  privileges  in  the 
burgs  to  the  burgesses  in  exchange  for  such  service  and  a 
firma,  or  what  was  equivalent  to  a  firma.  These  privi- 
leges would  include  the  mints,  and  this  accounts  for  the 
fact,  that  in  none  of  these  four  instances  are  they 
mentioned  in  the  Survey. 

It  is  true  that  the  Confessor's  charter  to  Dover  has  been 
questioned,  but  from  Domesday  it  is  quite  clear  that  the 
burgesses  in  his  reign  held  their  town  upon  the  above 
custom  in  addition  to  a  firma.  and  this  could  only  have 
arisen  by  charter. 

Under  the  Saxons  Dover  was  a  prolific  mint,  type  after 
type  appearing  in  regular  succession.  Upon  the  Con- 
quest William  gave  the  town — and  therefore  the  mint — 
to  Odo,  and  the  coinage  naturally  at  once  becomes  of  an 
intermittent  character,  until  his  fall  in  1082,  from  which, 
date  his  lordship  of  the  town  ceases. 

William  had  favoured  the  men  of  Dover,  for  even  when 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.      175 

his  followers  burnt  the  town,  in  1066,  he  paid  for  its 
rebuilding.  Their  stubborn  defence  against  Eustace  and 
the  Danish  fleet  also  entitled  them  to  his  consideration, 
and  it  is  probable  that  he,  upon  Odo's  fall  in  1082,  at  once 
regranted  to  them  their  ancient  privileges,  although  he 
increased  the  firma  to  £54.  In  1086  Domesday  records 
that  £30  (no  doubt  the  third  part  after  adding  the  value 
of  the  ships  and  customs,  hence  the  £90  firma  of  the  Pipe 
Roll)  of  it  was  payable  to  the  earl — Odo,  as  Earl  of  Kent 
— but  this  was  merely  for  purposes  of  account,  awaiting  the 
possible  revival  of  the  earldom,  for  the  whole  would  at  that 
time  be  received  by  the  King  under  the  forfeiture. 

From  about  1082,  therefore,  when  the  burgesses  again 
regained  their  ancient  customs,  coinage  here  once  more 
becomes  strictly  consecutive,  and  so  continues  until  the 
death  of  Rufus  in  1100. 

On  Henry's  accession  the  sequence  is  continued  and  his 
first  type,  251  (1100-1102),  is  issued,  but  now  comes  a 
change.  We  have  seen  how  close  was  the  association 
which  seems  to  have  existed  between  the  privileges  of  the 
burgesses  (including  their  mint),  and  their  service  of 
ships.  So  when  history  tells  us  that  the  boat  carles  in 
1101  betrayed  Henry  upon  his  emergency,  and  deserted 
to  Robert  of  Normandy,  only  one  result  can  be  expected. 
Henry's  virtues  did  not  include  magnanimity,  for  he 
wreaked  his  vengeance  upon  every  noble  of  the  land  who 
had  then  wavered  from  his  cause,  and  so  the  burgesses 
suffered  for  the  treachery  of  their  fleet.  Their  privileges 
are  withdrawn,  and  the  mint  is  closed. 

Although  the  burgesses,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  Pipe 
Roll,  continued  to  hold  their  town  at  firma,  they  are 
apparently  paying  an  annual  fine  of  sixty  marks,  and  so 
their  privileges  are,  no  doubt,  curtailed.  The  mint,  there- 


176 


NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 


fore,  remained  dormant  until  towards  the  end  of  the  reign 
of  Stephen,  when  it  was  temporarily  reopened,  perhaps 
during  his  visit  here  in  1154,  which  terminated  in  his 
death.  With  that  event,  the  mint  of  Dover  closed  for 
ever.  The  moneyer's  name  upon  the  coins  we  have  of 
that  hrief  revival  is  ADAM,  and  in  the  1157-8  Roll, 
Adam  Monetarim  of  Dover  is  recorded  as  owing  50 
marks  of  silver  "  for  his  redemption."  Perhaps  he  issued 
the  money  without  authority,  or  continued  to  issue  it  after 
Henry  II's  accession. 

COIN. 
4-GOLDPira  ON  DOFI  .frHNRI  EEX  N     251 

British  Museum.  This  moneyer  coined  here 
for  the  Williams. 

The  coin  of  type  253,  described  in  the  Whit- 
bourn  Catalogue  as  of  Dover  and  pierced, 
is  the  Marsham  and  Montagu  coin  of  Stam- 
ford, 6ODEIE  ON  STEN. 


DURHAM. 

DUNHOLME,  DUNOLM,  DURHAM,  DUBEM,  DuBESME  ;   Pipe  Roll, 
DUNELM. 

Unlike  the  cities  and  towns  hitherto  dealt  with,  Durham 
in  the  day  of  King  Henry  could  boast  of  little  antiquity, 
for  its  foundations  were  then  but  a  century  old.  Until 
995,  the  natural  strength  of  this  dun-holm  or  island  hill — 
for  the  horse-shoe  bend  of  the  river  almost  renders  it 
such — had  remained  neglected,  or  at  least  there  is  no 
historical  record  of  its  prior  occupation.  But  in  that 
year  it  was  chosen  for  the  shrine  of  the  wandering  remains 
of  St.  Cuthbert  and  of  the  holy  Bede.  As  such  it  at 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.      177 

once  became  the  seat  of  the  ancient  See  of  Lindisfarne  ; 
the  name  of  which  was  now  changed  to  Durham. 

Cam  den  tells  us  that  the  Palatine  rights  of  the  Bishops 
of  Durham  were  founded  upon  immemorial  prescription 
and  proceeded  from  a  principle  of  devotion  to  St.  Cuth- 
bert  ;  that  whatever  lands  were  given  to  him  should  be 
held  by  him  with  the  same  freedom  as  the  Princes  who 
gave  them  held  the  rest  of  their  estates.  Thus  in 
Henry  II's  time,  the  King's  writ  was  only  supposed  to 
run  in  the  Palatinate  by  the  courtesy  of  the  Bishop. 
William  of  Malmesbury,  describing  the  Norman  city  in 
those  days,  says : — 

"  Durham  is  a  hill,  rising  by  little  and  little  from  the  valley, 
by  an  easy  and  gentle  ascent,  to  the  very  top  ;  and,  notwith- 
standing that  by  its  rugged  situation  and  craggy  precipice  the 
access  to  it  is  cut  off  on  all  sides,  yet  lately  they  have  built  a 
castle  upon  the  hill." 

1069.  Robert  de  Comines,  to  whom  William  had  given 
the  county,  enters  the  city  with  500  men.     But  he 
and   his    retinue    are    massacred    by    the    citizens. 
(Orderic.) 

1070.  William,  in  retaliation,  lays  waste  Northumbria, 
and  for  nine  years  the  land  remained  "  a  mere  dreary 
waste,  and  between  York  and  Durham  there  was  not 
one  inhabited  town."     (Hoveden.) 

1071.  Bishop  Egel  wine  joins  Here  ward's  revolt,  is  taken 
prisoner  at  Ely,  and  dies  at  Abingdon.    (Sax.  Chron.) 

1072.  Walcher  of  Liege   is    appointed    his    successor. 
(Hoveden.)      The   King,   returning    from   Scotland, 
"  built  a  castle  at  Durham,  where  the  Bishop  and 
his  people  might  enjoy  security  from  the  incursions  of 
the  enemy."     (Hoveden.) 

1075.     Bishop  Walcher  purchases  the  earldom  of  North- 
umbria.    (Monasticon.) 

1080.  Bishop  Walcher  is  murdered  by  the  Northumbrians 
at   Gateshead,   and   so    William   again  ravages    the 
country.     (Hoveden.) 

1081.  William  De  Carileph  appointed  Bishop. 

1082.  The   King's   great   Westminster   Charter   to    the 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  A  A 


178  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Bishop  of  Durham  in  response  to  a  bull  of  requests 
by  Pope  Gregory,  consolidating  the  Palatine  powers 
as  "  omnes  dignitates  et  libertates  quse  ad  regis 
coronam  pertinent  ab  omni  servicio  et  inquietudine 
imperpetuum  liberas  munitas  et  quietas. "  (Monast.) 

1088.  Bishop  William  joins  Odo's  rebellion;  "yet  at 
this  very  time  the  King  (Rufus)  relied  on  his  dis- 
cretion as  a  faithful  councillor,  he  being  a  man  of 
great  sagacity,  and  the  whole  commonwealth  of 
England  was  under  his  administration."  (Florence.) 
"  The  King  afterwards  sent  an  army  to  Durham,  and 
besieged  the  castle,  and  the  Bishop  capitulated  and 
surrendered  it,  and  he  gave  up  his  bishopric  and 
went  to  Normandy."  (Sax.  Chron.) 

1091.  William  II  visits  Durham  and  restores  Bishop 
Carileph  to  his  See. 

1093.  The  Bishop  commences  the  great  Norman  cathe- 
dral. 

1096.  Death  of  William  De  Carileph.  Rufus  retains 
the  revenues  of  the  Palatine  See  for  three  years. 
(Orderic.) 

1099.  Ranulf  Flambard    appointed  Bishop,   "  a  man  of 
acute  intellect,  handsome  and  fluent,  cruel  and  am- 
bitious, rapacious    and    arrogant."     (Orderic.)      He 
was  treasurer  and  chief  justiciary  of  England. 

1100.  Almost  immediately  upon   his   accession,    Henry 
arrests  Ranulf,  and  commits  him  "  in  fetters  "  to  the 
Tower  of  London.     (Orderic. ) 

1101.  His  extraordinary  escape.     He  joins  Duke  Robert 
in  Normandy.     (Orderic,  &c.) 

1106.  On  Duke    Robert's  defeat  at   Tinchebrai   Ranulf 
offers  to  surrender  Lisieux  in  exchange  for  restora- 
tion to  his  bishopric.    This  Henry  accepts.  (Orderic.) 

1107.  Ranulf  attends  the  synod  at  Canterbury.     (Flo- 
rence.) 

1119.     Is  at  Henry's  court  in  Normandy.     (Florence.) 
1121.     Founds  Norham  Castle.     (Hoveden.) 
1128.     Death  of   Bishop   Ranulf  in  September.     (S.   of 
Durham,   Huntingdon.)     Henry  retains  the  revenues 
of  the  Palatinate   lor  nearly   five    years,   appointing 
Geoffrey  Escolland  and  John  de  Amundevilla  seques- 
trators.     (S.  of  Durham.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Geoffrey  Escolland  returns  the 
accounts,  and  John  de  Amundevilla  certifies  the  pay- 
ments. The  revenue  of  the  bishopric  for  the  previous 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY   I.      179 

year,  1128-9,  was  £401  Is,  .  The  Archbishop  of  York 
had  lately  visited  the  diocese,  and  the  King  of  Scot- 
land had  passed  through  it  on  his  return  from  Henry's 
court.  Many  manors  are  still  waste.  £4  4s.  is  paid 
to  make  up  the  full  number  (of  pennies)  deficient  on 
tale  when  the  Earl  of  Gloucester  and  Brian  Fitz 
Count  audited  the  exchequer  accounts  (at  Winchester) 
for  the  previous  year.  [See  page  8.]  The  burgesses 
of  Durham  are  amerced  in  100  shillings  on  the  plea 
of  Eustace  Fitz  John,  the  King's  justiciary,  but  are 
allowed  60  shillings  for  the  burning  of  their  houses 
(probably  an  annual  grant  originating  in  the  devasta- 
tions of  William's  time),  40  shillings  is  spent  on  two 
ships,  Anchitel  de  Worcester  accounts  for  40  shil- 
lings which  he  had  received  from  Oliver  "  de  pecunia  " 
of  the  Bishop  of  Durham.  [The  phrase  "de  pecunia  " 
occurs  very  often  in  the  Roll,  and  it  must  be  pointed 
out  that  unfortunately  it  does  not  refer  to  money  as 
currency.  "Pecunia"  is  derived  from  " pecus," 
cattle,  hence  chattel,  and  it  is  in  this  sense  that  it  is 
used  throughout  the  Roll,  and  usually  in  cases  of  suc- 
cession to  property  of  a  deceased  person.  So  it  may 
in  future  be  translated  "  personal  effects."] 

1133.  Geoffrey,  the  King's  Chancellor,  is  appointed 
Bishop. 

1183-  "  The  dies  for  the  money  at  Durham  used  to  pay 
10  marks,  but  Henry  II,  as  he  established  the  dies  in 
Newcastle,  reduced  the  payment  of  10  marks  to  8, 
and  proportionately  reduced  the  fines  '"  [when  the 
types  were  changed],  (Boldon  Book.) 

Hitherto  it  has  Veen  supposed  that  we  have  no  Saxon 
coins  of  Durham  ;  but  the  mint  was  certainly  in  operation 
at  some  time  during  the  reign  of  either  William  I  or  II,  for 
we  have  coins  of  a  single  type  of  one  of  them  struck  here 
bearing  the  appropriate  moneyer's  name  EVTDBRHT. 
This  is  the  PA+S  type  (Hawkins  241  and  242),  which 
composed  the  bulk  of  the  coins  in  the  great  Beaworth 
hoard,  and  we  shall  presently  see  how  simple  it  now  is  to 
define  its  date  of  issue. 

Before  doing  so,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the 


180  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

passage  in  the  Boldon  Book  and  prove  that  prior  to  the 
year  1174,  the  sole  privilege  of  coinage  at  Durham  was 
vested  in  the  Bishops  Palatine. 

1252.  "  Upon  the  testimony  of  various  persons  worthy 
of  credit,  and  the  exhibition  of  ancient  dies  and  of 
money  struck  from  them,"  Henry  III  allowed  that  the 
Bishops  "were  accustomed  to  have  their  dies  at 
Durham,  and  he  restored  to  the  then  Bishop  seizin 
of  his  dies,  to  hold  them  in  the  Church  of  Durham  as 
his  predecessors  used  to  have  them." 

1293.  Edward  I  directed  a  writ  of  inquiry  as  to  what 
were  the  ancient  privileges  of  the  Bishops  of  Durham, 
and  particularly  as  to  their  right  of  coinage.  It  was 
found  that  they  "  had  enjoyed  all  royal  privileges 
within  the  liberty  of  Durham  from  the  time  of  the 
conquest  of  England  and  before,  without  any  inter- 
ruption, as  of  the  right  and  liberty  of  the  Church  of 
St.  Cuthbert  in  Durham."  (Ruding.) 

There  are  several  other  records  to  the  same  effect,  but 
these  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  Palatine  rights  of 
the  Bishops  included  that  of  coinage.  Indeed  it  would 
be  remarkable  if  that  were  not  so,  for  even  the  King's 
writ  did  not  run  in  the  diocese  prior  to  1174  (as  Henry  II 
admits  in  his  Woodstock  charter,  1163-1166 — Mound], 
and  so  up  to  that  period  the  sole  right  of  coining  at 
Durham  was  vested  in  the  Bishop,  who  "  enjoyed  all  royal 
privileges." 

From  the  1293  writ  it  is  evident  that  this  right  dated 
from  about  the  time  of  the  Conquest,  but  whether  the 
words  "  and  before "  were  mere  general  terms  to  show 
that  there  was  no  clearly  ascertained  date  of  origin  or 
whether  they  referred  to  a  right  (although  not  exercised) 
under  the  general  "  royal  privileges,"  or  again  whether 
such  words  were  true,  is  not  so  clear.  It  is,  however,  the 
paramount  principle  of  this  work  to  trust  the  evidence 
of  our  early  records  throughout  in  preference  to  accepting 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY  OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HFNRY  I.       181 

any  theory  to  the  contrary.  Therefore,  it  is  submitted 
that  the  coins  of  Ethelred  II  reading  ^EADSI  MO  DVNLI 
and  of  Canute  reading  ^.LEOOFEIE  M  DVM,  hitherto 
given  to  Dunwich,  in  Suffolk,  must  be  now  assigned  to 
Durham.  There  is  no  record  of  the  existence  of  any  mint 
at  Dunwich,  and  the  words  "  from  the  time  of  the  Con- 
quest and  before,"  are  exactly  the  vague  terms  in  which 
one  would  even  to-day  describe  the  origin  of  the  mint  of 
Durham,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  have  these  coins 
struck  during  the  first  quarter  of  a  century  following  the 
establishment  of  the  See,  and  none  afterwards  until  the 
reign  of  William  I. 

So  supreme  was  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Palatinate  that 
it  came  neither  within  the  scope  of  Domesday  nor  of  the 
early  Pipe  Rolls  except  during  a  sequestration.  In  1174, 
however,  Henry  II  altered  all  this.  King  Stephen's 
nephew,  Hugh  de  Pudsey,  was  the  then  Bishop,  and  Henry 
having  cause  to  suspect  his  allegiance  compelled  him  to 
deliver  possession  of  the  castle  of  Durham.  In  1177, 
Henry  delivered 

"to  Eoger  de  Conyars  the  custody  of  the  fortress  of  Durham, 
which  the  King  had  taken  from  Hugh,  the  Bishop  of  Durham, 
because  he  had  only  made  a  feint  of  serving  him  in  the  civil 
wars.  In  consequence  of  this,  the  Bishop  gave  him  2,000 
marks  of  silver  to  regain  his  favour  on  condition  that  his  castles 
should  be  left  standing."  (Hoveden.) 

Thus  the  Palatine  authority  was  for  a  time  broken,  and 
the  King  confiscated  the  mint  and  appointed  his  own 
moneyers  (seemingly  three).  One  of  these,  William  by 
name,  he  presently  removed  to  Newcastle,  which  was  then 
increasing  in  importance  owing  to  the  imprisonment  of 
the  King  of  Scotland  in  its  castle.  In  1183  he  ordered  a 
return  to  be  made  of  his  new  possessions,  similar  in  its 


182  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

details  to  that  of  Domesday.  This  is  known  to  us  as  "  The 
Boldon  Book,"  and  its  entry,  as  quoted  above,  is  thus  quite 
consistent  with  the  history  of  the  mint.  Incidentally  we 
notice  that  the  date  of  the  establishment  of  the  Newcastle 
mint  must  have  been  after  1174  and  before  1183.  The 
following  grant  is  also  now  explained. 

1196.  "  King  Richard  gave  to  Philip  of  Poitiers, .Bishop 
elect,  license  to  make  money  in  his  city  of  Durham, 
a  permission  which  had  not  been  granted  to  his  pre- 
decessors for  a  long  time  back"  [i.e.  since  1174  or 
1177]. 

In  this  we  have  direct  evidence  that  a  grant  of  coinage 
required  a  confirmation  charter  upon  every  succession  of 
the  grantee,  and  that  the  Prince-Bishops  of  the  Palatinate 
held  their  privilege  by  grant  and  not  by  prescription. 

To  return  to  the  "  time  when  King  William  came  into 
England,"  as  Domesday  would  say.  Egelwine,  the  Saxon 
Bishop,  does  not  tender  his  submission  to  the  Conqueror, 
and  therefore  the  latter  grants  the  earldom  to  Robert  de 
Comines.  This  was  a  severance  of  the  Palatinate,  but  the 
earl  was  slain  on  the  night  of  his  entry  into  Durham. 
Egelwine,  after  a  temporary  flight  across  the  Border,  joins 
Hereward's  revolt  in  1071,  is  imprisoned  and  dies.  If  he 
had  coined  at  all,  his  money  would  certainly  not  have 
borne  the  name  of  a  Norman  King  upon  it.  Walcher  is 
appointed  his  successor,  and  about  1075  purchases  the  out- 
standing earldom,  and  in  1080  he  is  murdered  by  the 
Northumbrians.  In  1081  William  de  Carileph  succeeds. 

Up  to  this  date  the  county  had  been  in  a  most  dis- 
turbed state,  and  it  is  evident  that  after  the  severance  of 
the  earldom  in  1069  the  two  Norman  Bishops  had  not 
been  recognised  as  Bishops  Palatine  or  exercised  their 
ancient  privileges  as  such,  for  now  Pope  Gregory  intervenes 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.      183 

by  issuing  a  bull  requesting  the  King  to  restore  and  con- 
solidate the  rights  of  the  Palatinate.  This  is  done  by 
the  great  Charter  to  Durham,  granted  by  King  William, 
in  Council,  at  Westminster,  in  the  sixteenth  year  of  his 
reign  (1082).  It  is  set  out  at  length  in  the  Monasticon ; 
but,  briefly,  it  granted  to  Bishop  Carileph  and  his  suc- 
cessors, and  to  the  Church  of  St.  Cuthbert,  all  the  ancient 
rights  of  St.  Cuthbert  and  every  privilege  within  the 
diocese  that  the  King  himself  had  elsewhere.  Now,  and 
only  now  during  the  whole  of  the  reigns  of  the  two 
Williams  has  a  bishop,  so  far  as  is  recorded,  the  right  and 
opportunity  of  coining  at  Durham,  and  therefore  the  date 
of  the  coins  of  the  PA+S  type  must  be  between  1082  and 
1087. 

On  the  accession  of  Rufus  in  1087,  Bishop  Carileph  joined 
Odo's  rebellion  before  there  was  any  probability  of  his  hav- 
ing received  a  confirmation  charter  from  the  new  King.  He 
was  besieged  in  Durham  in  1088,  and  exiled  to  Normandy. 
In  September,  1091,  upon  the  emergency  of  an  invasion  by 
the  Scottish  King,  Rufus  visited  Durham  and  restored 
Carileph  to  his  See,  though  not  necessarily  to  favour,  and 
it  is  unlikely  that  he  ever  confirmed  the  Palatine  charter 
to  him.  On  the  contrary,  he  took  this  opportunity  of 
curtailing  the  powers  of  the  See  by  depriving  it  of  the 
ruined  town  of  Carlisle,  which  he  converted  into  a  royal 
fortress.  Carileph  died  in  September,  1096,  and  for  three 
years  Rufus  retained  the  revenues  in  his  own  hands.  In 
1099,  two  months  only  before  the  King's  death,  Ranulf 
Flambard  was  appointed  to  the  See.  Hence  we  have  no 
coins  struck  at  Durham  during  the  reign  of  William  II. 

For  the  third  time  on  a  Norman  King's  accession 
trouble  falls  on  Durham,  Flambard  is  immediately  arrested 
by  Henry  and  confined  in  the  Tower.  He  escapes  to 


184  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Normandy  in  the  following  year,  and  from  now  to  the 
battle  of  Tinchebrai  in  September,  1106,  he  is  the  most 
dangerous  of  Henry's  enemies  in  Duke  Robert's  camp. 
At  this  time  Henry's  quarrel  with  Archbishop  Anselm  is 
at  its  height,  and  therefore  when  the  wily  Bishop  offers 
to  surrender  his  castle  and  province  of  Lisieux  to  him 
in  ex  change  for  the  restoration  of  the  See,  Henry  accepted 
the  compromise,  and  "  restored  to  Flambard,  with  whom 
he  was  reconciled,  his  bishopric  of  Durham." 

This  is  a  very  different  matter  from  a  spontaneous 
reconciliation  and  restoration  of  the  Palatine  privileges, 
and  with  the  exception  of  certain  charters  to  which  his 
attestation  was  probably  necessary  in  his  official  capacity, 
it  is  many  years  before  we  read  of  Flambard  being  received 
at  the  King's  Court.  In  1119,  however,  he  visits  Henry 
in  Normandy  and  supports  his  contention  at  the  Council 
of  Rheims — which,  perhaps,  paves  his  way  to  his  ultimate 
restoration  to  favour.  In  1122  Henry  visits  Durham, 
probably  to  attend  the  consecration  of  the  new  Cathedral, 
which  is  now  sufficiently  completed. 

In  or  about  1127  the  silver  mines  on  the  borders  of 
Cumberland  and  Northumberland,  but  within  the  ancient 
"  lands  of  St.  Cuthbert,"  are  discovered.  It  is  now  to 
the  mutual  benefit  of  King  and  Bishop  that  the  mint  at 
Durham  should  be  revived,  for  the  King  claims  the 
royalties  from  the  mines  and  the  Bishop  the  profit  from 
the  dies.  Henry  farms  the  mines  and  grants  a  mint  to 
the  burghers  of  Carlisle,  and  it  is  essential  that  he 
should  settle  any  question  that  might  arise  as  to  whether 
he  or  the  Bishop  was  entitled  to  the  revenue  of  this 
discovery.  The  most  natural  protection  of  his  claim 
would  be  by  a  charter  confirming  to  the  Bishop  the 
Palatine  privileges  other  than  those  of  royal  mines. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY    I.      185 

This  is  supposition,  but  we  have  evidence  from  the  coins 
that  both  the  mints  of  Durham  and  Carlisle  now  issue  type 
262  (1128-1131).  Carlisle,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  newly 
created  mint  and  that  of  Durham  had  been  in  abeyance 
for  forty  years. 

But  in  the  autumn  of  1128  Bishop  Flambard  dies  and 
therefore  the  few  rare  coins  we  have  of  Durham  during 
this  reign  must  have  been  issued  at  the  very  commence- 
ment of  this  type. 

The  great  revenues  of  the  See  were  a  temptation  to 
Henry,  and  consequently  he  did  not  appoint  a  successor 
to  Flambard  until  1133.  In  the  meantime  the  King's 
commissioners  were  in  charge  of  the  Palatinate.  There 
was  a  curious  custom  at  Durham  during  a  vacancy  in  the 
See.  The  key  of  the  castle  was  suspended  over  the  tomb 
of  St.  Cuthbert  in  the  Cathedral,  to  imply  that  as  the 
castle  had  been  granted  to  St.  Cuthbert,  it  would  be 
sacrilege  for  any  other  than  his  episcopalian  successor  to 
use  it.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the  privileges  in  the  great 
charter  of  1082  and  the  seizin  of  the  dies  in  the  writ  of 
1293  were  granted  to,  and  according  to  the  rights  of,  the 
Church  of  St.  Cuthbert,  and  that  the  grant  of  the  latter 
in  the  writ  of  1252  was  "  to  hold  the  dies  in  the  Church 
of  Durham  as  the  Bishop's  predecessors  used  to  have 
them."  Hence  we  may  infer  that  during  a  sequestration 
they  also  were  similarly  placed  over  the  saint's  tomb.  But 
in  any  case  we  have  no  instance  either  here  or  elsewhere 
of  coinage  being  continued  between  the  death  of  a  grantee 
and  the  confirmation  grant  to  his  successor.  In  1133  the 
appointment  of  the  new  Bishop  Geoffrey,  the  Chancellor, 
was  between  Whitsuntide  and  August,  and  early  in  the 
latter  month  the  King  sailed  to  Normandy,  never  to  return 
alive.  Hence  there  was  little  opportunity  for  a  confir-ina- 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  B  B 


186 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


tion  charter  to  the  new  Bishop ;  his  name  is  not  to  be 
found  upon  the  King's  charters,  nor  was  he  consecrated 
at  the  date  of  Henry's  departure.  We  have,  therefore, 
no  Durham  coins  issued  by  him  during  this  reign. 


COINS. 

*OEDPI  :  ON  :   DVEIxAM  : 
Watford  find. 


,J,fiENKI[E]VS:     262 


.frOKDPI  :  ON    DVRfcAM  *I\ENEIEYS 

British  Museum.     From  Mr.  Rashleigh. 


262 


•frOKDPI  ON  DVRIiAM  ^.riENRIEVS  262 

Watford  find.    Perhaps  the  Museum  specimen. 

The  specimen  of  255,  described  as  of  this  mint, 
in  the  Durden  Catalogue,  1892,  is  Mr.  A. 
H.  Sadd's  London  coin,  reading  »i«BALD- 
PI>E  ON  LVN. 


EXETER  (DEVONSHIRE). 

EAXANCEASTBE,  EAXECEASTRE,  EXACESTK.E,  EXCESTBA;   Domes- 
day, "  Exon  "  Domesday,  and  Pipe  Roll,  EXONIA. 

This  ancient  British  and  Roman  city  was  one  of  the 
principal  burgs  of  the  West  Saxon  Kings.  In  the  reign 
of  Alfred  the  Danes  seized  it,  and  it  was  for  some  time 
the  centre  of  their  defence  in  the  West.  Athelstan  forti- 
fied the  city  "  with  towers,  and  a  wall  of  squared  stone," 
which,  however,  probably  means  that  he  restored  the 
Roman  walls,  for  they  were  still  standing  in  Norman 
times.  The  author  of  The  Gesta  describes  Exeter  in 
Stephen's  days  as — 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.     187 

"  A  large  city,  ranking,  they  say,  the  fourth  in  England.  It  is 
surrounded  by  ancient  Roman  walla,  and  is  famous  for  its  sea 
fisheries,  for  abundance  of  meat,  and  for  its  trade  and  com- 
merce." 

The  see  of  Exeter  was  established  in  the  reign  of  the 
Confessor. 

1067.  The  citizens  close  their  gates  against  William, 
"  offering  to  pay  tribute  according  to  ancient  custom." 
They  slay  many  of  his  army,  but  after  a  short 
siege  surrender  the  city.  (Orderic,  Sax.  Chron.) 
William  "  selected  a  spot  within  the  walls  for  erecting 
a  castle,  and  left  there  Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert  de 
Meules,  and  other  knights  of  eminence,  to  complete 
the  work  and  garrison  the  place."  (Orderic.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  Confessor's  time  this 
city  never  paid  geld  except  when  London,  York, 
and  Winchester  were  assessed,  and  this  was  half  a 
mark  of  silver  to  military  service.  The  city  ren- 
dered service  whenever  there  was  an  expedition 
against  the  enemy  by  land  or  by  sea.  Now  the  King 
has  in  the  city  nearly  800  houses,  of  which  275 
pay  customs.  These  pay  £18  per  annum.  Of  this 
B[aldwin  Fitz  Gilbert],  the  sheriff,  has  £6  by  weight 
after  refining.  Forty-eight  houses  have  been  laid 
waste  since  the  King  came  into  England.  The 
Bishop  of  Exeter  has  a  church  in  the  city,  paying 
one  mark,  and  17  houses  paying  10s.  10d.,  and  two 
are  laid  waste  by  fire.  The  burgesses  have  12  caru- 
cates  of  land  outside  the  city. 

1090.  Death  of  Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert  (Orderic).  He  is 
succeeded  as  to  his  English  possessions  by  his  second 
or  third  son,  Richard  de  Redvers  (but  see  below). 
Richard  de  Redvers  revolts  from  Rufus  and  joins 
Henry's  defence  of  the  Cotentin,  Normandy. 
(Orderic.) 

1101.  Richard  de  Redvers  supports  Henry's  cause  in 
England  against  Duke  Robert,  and  is  admitted  to  his 
councils.  (Orderic.) 

1101,  Christmas.     Witnesses  the  Colchester  charter. 

1107.  His  death  (Florence  and  Orderic).  He  is  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son,  Baldwin  de  Redvers,  who,  in  the 
Carisbrooke  charter  of  Stephen's  reign,  quoted  by 


188  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Mr.  Round,  and  also  in  his  charter  to  St.  James' 
Priory,  Exeter,  calls  him  his  father. 

1112.  Foundation  of  the  Norman  cathedral.  (Exon 
Chron.) 

1128.  Henry  gives  Matilda,  daughter  of  Richard  de 
Redvers,  in  marriage  to  William  de  Roumare. 
(Orderic.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Baldwin  de  Redvers  accounts 
for  500  marks  of  silver  for  his  forestry  rights  over  the 
county  of  Devon,  of  which  he  pays  an  instalment  of 
£100,  and  similarly  pays  £20  of  £42  11s.  4d.  for  the 
previous  year's  military  service  for  his  lands.  Pay- 
ments are  allowed  for  supplies  to  the  four  vigiles  of 
the  castle  of  Exeter,  showing  that  it  is  still  a  royal 
demesne.  The  port  and  market  dues  are  each  re- 
turned at  60s.,  and  £25  12s.  6d.  [being  two-thirds]  of 
the  firma  of  the  city,  is  paid  by  the  Sheriff  to  the 
Canons  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  London.  There  is  a 
further  reference  to  the  city,  but  the  context  is 
obliterated. 

1130.  Adeliza,  widow  of  Richard  de  Redvers,  grants  a 
charter  to  the  church  of  Salisbury. 

1181.  Sep.  8.  Baldwin  de  Redvers  is  at  the  North- 
ampton council  and  witnesses  the  Salisbury  charter. 

The  name  of  Exeter  first  appears  upon  our  coinage  on 
one  of  the  late  types  of  Alfred  the  Great,  struck  here  no 
doubt  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Danes  from  the  West  in 
895.  The  Law  of  Athelstan  authorised  the  mint  to  have 
two  money ers,  and  his  coins  seem  to  corroborate  that 
number  as  coining  here  at  a  time.  From  his  reign  to 
the  date  of  the  Conquest  the  name  of  every  King  appears 
upon  the  Exeter  money,  but  the  number  of  moneyers  was 
increased  to  four. 

As  the  mint  is  not  mentioned  in  Domesday  it  follows 
that  it  had  either  been  farmed  to  the  burgesses  or 
granted  to  the  territorial  lord.  The  burgesses,  however, 
did  not  then  pay  a  firma,  but  their  houses  were  rated 
directly  to  the  King  at  £18.  Of  this,  £6  went  to  Bald- 
win Fitz  Gilbert,  to  whom  William,  in  1067,  had  entrusted 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY    I.      189 

the  castle.  The  six  pounds  is  obviously  the  tertius  de- 
narius of  the  town.  A  grant  of  the  tertius  denarius  of  the 
pleas  of  a  County  constituted  an  earldom  with  all  its 
almost  sovereign  powers,  and  pro  rata,  a  grant  of  that  of 
a  town  carried  with  it  all  the  minor  privileges  annexed 
to  the  lordship  of  the  burg,  and  the  invariable  rule  seems 
to  have  been  that  whenever  the  tertius  denarius  of  a  mint 
town  existed  it  carried  the  mint  with  it.  (As  to  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  classes  of  "  third  pennies  "  see 
Mr.  Round's  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville). 

Baldwin  was  cousin  to  the  Conqueror,  and  materially 
assisted  him  in  the  invasion.  He  had  large  possessions 
in  Normandy,  including  the  castles  of  Brionne  and  Sap, 
and  was  called  Baldwin  the  Viscount.  That  he  did 
possess  the  mint  of  Exeter  is  proved  by  a  glance  at  its 
coinage  under  the  two  Williams.  From  1067  to  and 
inclusive  of  the  first  type  of  William  II.  (say  1087-1089), 
every  type  is  consecutively  issued  from  Exeter,  and  after 
that  none,  for  he  died  in  1090. 

The  link  identifying  Richard  de  Redvers  as  Richard, 
son  of  Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert,  has  been  questioned.  But 
Orderic  tells  us  that  at  the  date  of  the  Conquest  there 
were  two  brothers,  Richard  and  Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert, 
and  the  Charter  of  St.  Pere  de  Chartres  of  1060  mentions 
three  brothers,  Richard,  Baldwin,  and  William  de  Redvers. 
Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert,  again,  had  three  sons,  Robert,  Wil- 
liam, and  Richard  (Orderic),  and  Baldwin  de  Redvers 
also  had  a  son,  Richard.  Moreover,  under  1136  the  Gesta 
speaks  of  Baldwin  de  Redvers  II,  afterwards  Earl  of 
Devon,  as  a  man  of  the  highest  rank  and  descent,  which 
is  applicable  to  the  descendant  of  Gilbert,  the  grandson 
of  Richard  I,  Duke  of  Normandy,  but  incompatible  with 
the  son  of  Richard  de  Redvers,  if  he  were  the  first  of  his 


190  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

name  to  attain  any  position  of  eminence.  Again,  we 
know  that  Richard  de  Redvers  was  nephew  of  William 
Fitz  Osborn,  cousin  to  William  I,  and  Baldwin  Fitz 
Gilbert  was  also  a  cousin  of  that  King.  Therefore,  in 
view  of  these  coincidences  and  of  the  fact  that  on  Henry's 
accession  the  Redvers  family  appear  as  lords  of  Exeter 
without  any  explanation  or  notice  of  a  new  grant,  the 
evidence  of  identification  is  strong,  for,  as  most  of  the 
barons  of  that  period  were  known  by  half  a  dozen  names 
of  description,  the  difference  of  surname  is  of  little 
moment.  Moreover,  the  Cotton  MS.,  Julii  B.  10,  states 
such  to  have  been  the  case.  But  if  this  is  not  correct,  it 
makes  little  difference  to  the  story  of  the  Exeter  mint,  for 
it  merely  changes  Henry's  "  confirmation  "  charter  to  De 
Redvers  into  an  entirely  fresh  grant  of  the  lordship  of 
Exeter  to  that  family. 

To  return  to  the  death  of  Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert  of  Exeter 
in  1090.  His  eldest  son  Robert  succeeded  as  usual  to  the 
Norman  estates,  but  soon  afterwards  he  was  expelled  from 
Brionne  Castle  by  Duke  Robert,  so  it  is  not  surprising 
that  in  the  same  year  we  find  his  "  brother  "  Richard  de 
Redvers,  the  heir  to  Exeter,  in  league  with  Prince  Henry 
in  the  Co  ten  tin,  who  was  "  exasperated  with  the  Duke 
.  .  .  and  no  less  at  variance  with  King  William  "  (Orderic). 
Until,  therefore,  the  accession  of  Henry,  Exeter  remained 
without  its  lord,  and  the  mint  was  in  abeyance. 

In  the  passaare  iust  quoted  from  Orderic  the  name  of 

-L  O          «J  J. 

Richard  de  Redvers  follows  that  of  Hugh,  Earl  of 
Chester,  and,  as  we  have  seen  under  that  mint,  "  Hugh, 
Earl  of  Chester,  and  Robert  de  Beleme  with  other 
barous  who  were  at  that  time  in  Normandy,"  were  not  at 
Henry's  coronation  in  August,  1100,  but  "put  their  affairs 
in  Normandy  in  order,  and  hastening  to  England  offered 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.      191 

due  submission  to  the  new  King,  and  having  done 
homage  to  him  received  confirmation  in  their  possessions 
and  all  their  dignities  with  royal  gifts "  (Orderic). 
Richard  was  probably  one  of  these,  and  as  we  have  no 
certain  evidence  that  any  one  of  the  four  mints  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  these  lords — namely,  Exeter,  Chichester, 
Shrewsbury  or  Chester  struck  type  251  (1100-1102),  it 
seems  probable  that  they  stayed  some  months  in  Nor- 
mandy to  put  their  aifairs  in  order. 

Richard  de  Redvers  is  also  mentioned  in  connection 
with  Earl  Hugh  (and  therefore  after  the  latter's  arrival 
in  England),  as  being  admitted  to  Henry's  councils,  and 
we  read  that  upon  Duke  Robert's  invasion  in  the  autumn 
of  1101,  "  Robert  de  Mellent,  Richard  de  Redvers,  and 
many  other  stout  barons  rallied  round  the  King " 
(Orderic).  Between  September,  1101,  and  1104,  his 
name  appears  as  a  witness  to  several  English  charters. 

Duke  Robert  landed  at  Portsmouth,  and,  according  to 
Wace,  the  two  brothers  met  and  arranged  their  treaty  in 
"a  forest  district  called  Hantone."  This  has  been  con- 
strued as  Hampton  Court,  but  it  is,  of  course,  Southamp- 
ton, on  the  then  boundary  of  the  New  Forest.  It  was 
probably  on  this  occasion  that  Henry  granted  to  De 
Redvers  the  neighbouring  manor  of  Christchurch  and 
shortly  afterwards  a  confirmation  charter  of  the  lordship 
of  Exeter  (erroneously  said  to  have  been  of  the  earldom), 
as  some  reward  for  his  assistance  at  this  crisis.  The 
Cotton  MS.  tells  us  that  King  Henry  I.  granted  to  "  his 
beloved  and  faithful  Richard  de  Redvers,"  first  Tiverton 
and  afterwards  the  Honour  of  Plympton,  with  other 
places,  and  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  County  "  (probably 
an  error  for  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  City  of  Exeter 
only)  ;  "  after  this  he  obtained  from  the  said  King  the 


192  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Isle  of  "Wight."  Whether  this  is  strictly  accurate  or  not, 
it  proves  at  least  that  some  time  elapsed  between  the  date 
of  Henry's  accession  and  that  of  the  confirmation  charter 
of  Exeter  to  De  Redvers.  Hence  type  251  (1100-1102) 
does  not  appear  upon  these  coins.  This,  therefore,  brings 
us  to  1102,  and  type  254  (1102-1104)  now  appears  from 
the  Exeter  mint.  Between  1104  and  1106,  as  one  of  the 
lords  of  the  Cotentin  and  castellan  of  Yernon,  he  would  be 
with  the  army  in  Normandy  and  at  Tinchebrai,  and  so 
type  253  is  absent  from  the  Exeter  coins.  He,  how- 
ever, returned  to  Exeter,  and  died  there  in  1107,  "a 
baron  of  England,"  as  Orderic  calls  him ;  and  so  type 
252  (1106-1108)  is  in  evidence  from  the  mint.  He 
married  Adeliza,  daughter  of  William  Peverell  of  Notting- 
ham, as  appears  by  a  charter  of  Earl  Baldwin  in  Stephen's 
reign,  and  she  survived  her  husband  until  1130  at  least. 
He  left  three  sons,  Baldwin,  who  succeeded  to  most 
of  his  possessions,  William  and  Robert.  Baldwin,  who 
was  probably  a  minor  at  that  time,  for  his  grandfather 
was  living  up  to  1090,  and  he  himself  survived  his 
father  for  nearly  fifty  years,  seems  to  have  succeeded  to 
all  his  father's  possessions  in  Normandy,  for  he  was  cas- 
tellan of  Vernon  and  Lord  of  Nehou.  English  chroniclers 
are  silent  as  to  him  until  the  year  1131,  and  it  does  not 
appear  that  he  ever  resided  in  his  father's  lordship  of 
Exeter  until  about  the  year  1128.  The  grounds  for  this 
supposition  are  the  following.  First :  The  absence  of  his 
name  in  English  chronicles  or  charters  prior  to  the  year 
1129,  whereas  after  that  date  it  constantly  appears. 
Second :  The  fact  that  he  witnesses  charters  in  Nor- 
mandy in  1123  and  1125.  Third  :  The  entries  in  the 
1129-30  Pipe  Roll  that  he  is  then  paying  off  £500  by 
instalments  of  £100  a  year  for  the  Forestry  rights  of 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY    I.      193 

Devon,  probably  part  of  the  relief  upon  his  return  and 
succession  to  his  father's  estates ;  and  of  the  item  for 
military  auxilium  from  his  land  for  the  previous  year 
(1128),  which  rather  suggests  that  he  had  arrived  in  that 
year.  Fourth :  The  Gesta  tell  us  under  the  year  1136 
that  "  he  had  brought  armed  bands  into  the  city  (of  Exe- 
ter) among  the  peaceable  inhabitants  and  was  reducing 
not  only  them  but  all  the  neighbourhood  under  his 
dominion."  This  far  better  describes  the  comparatively 
recent  entry  of  a  Norman  stranger  into  the  city  than 
the  revolt  of  an  English  Baron  resident  there  for  nearly 
thirty  years. 

To  return  to  the  coinage.  From  the  death  of  Richard 
in  1107  to  the  years  1112-1114  we  have,  therefore,  no 
coins  bearing  the  name  of  this  mint.  In  1112,  however, 
occurred  the  foundation  of  the  Norman  Cathedral  by 
Bishop  William  de  Warlewast.  Unfortunately,  the  charter 
is  not  extant,  but  the  usual  custom  would  be  followed  and 
the  presence  of  the  lord  of  Exeter  was  necessary  to 
join  in  the  grant  of  its  lands  and  endowments.  So  Bald- 
win, now  probably  of  age,  would  visit  his  lordship  of 
Exeter  on  that  occasion  to  receive  his  own  confirmation 
charter,  and  to  then  grant  the  charter  of  foundation  to 
the  new  church,  which  again  would  require  a  confirmation 
charter  from  the  King.  It  is  therefore  no  mere  coin- 
cidence which  gives  us  type  267  (1112-1114)  of  this 
mint. 

He  next  returns  to  England  about  1128,  or  perhaps 
came  over  with  the  Empress  Matilda,  for  there  is  a 
mutilated  paragraph  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  under  Devon- 
shire which  is  more  likely  to  refer  to  him  than  to  anyone 
else,  namely,  a  grant  to  ".  .  .  .  according  to  the  promises 
which  the  King  guaranteed  to  him  when  the  Empress 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    8ERIES.  U   C 


194  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

came  into  England."  This  is  the  more  probable  as  he 
devoted  the  rest  of  his  life  to  her  service,  and  according  to 
the  Gesta,  on  the  surrender  of  Exeter  in  1136  his  friends 
pleaded  with  the  King  for  his  life  because  he  had  "  never 
sworn  allegiance  to  Stephen,  but  only  obeyed  the  com- 
mands of  his  Liege-lord,"  meaning  no  doubt  Geoffrey  of 
Anjou,  for  Robert  of  Gloucester  could  hardly  be  so  called; 
moreover,  Earl  Robert  had  not  then  declared  against 
Stephen.  It  was,  too,  about  this  date,  1128,  that  Bald- 
win's sister  Matilda  was  married  to  William  de  Roumare 
of  Lincoln. 

We  have,  however,  direct  evidence  that  he  was  in 
England  for  some  time  between  1130  and  1133,  for  his 
name  appears  on  several  charters  between  those  dates. 
He  was  at  the  great  Council  of  Northampton  on  Sep- 
tember 8th,  1131,  and  swore  allegiance  to  the  Empress — 
also  witnessing  the  Salisbury  Charter  on  the  same  occasion. 
Hence  types  262  (1128-1131),  and  255  (1131-1135)  are 
in  plentiful  evidence  upon  our  Exeter  coins.  That  he 
held  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  city  is  also  inferred  by  the 
evidence  of  the  charters  of  Queen  Matilda,  who  died  in 
1118,  of  Queen  Adelaide,  and  of  the  King  at  Northamp- 
ton (in  1131),  granting  and  confirming  the  remaining 
"  two  parts  of  the  revenue  of  the  City  of  Exeter "  to  the 
Priory  of  the  Holy  Trinity  at  London.  Hence  the  curious 
entry  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  that  "£25  12s.  6d.  of  the 
firma  of  the  city  of  Exeter  was  paid  by  the  Sheriff  to  the 
Canons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  at  London." 

The  mint  was  continued  intermittently  until  the  time 
of  the  Edwards,  and  revived  once  or  twice  in  compara- 
tively modern  times. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.     195 

COINS. 
*[^J]LFPINE  ON  IEX  *  HENRI  EEX      254 

Montagu  Sale,  1896,  £3  14s.  This  moneyer 
had  coined  here  up  to  1090. 

.  .  LFPINE  :  ON  :  EX  ...       *I\ENBI  BEX        252 
Sir  John  Evans.     22  grs. 

*  BRAND  :  ON  :  E  .  .  ST  :         .frlxENRIEVS  B       262 

Watford  find.  The  moneyer  is  perhaps  one  of 
the  family  of  Brand  who  coined  at  Win- 
chester and  Wallingford  for  the  Confessor. 

* BRAND  :  ON  :  EE  .  ST         *I\ENRIEVS  B          262 
Sainthill's  Olla  Podrida.     22  grs. 

•J-BRIxIEDPI  :  ON  EXEE  :  *hENRIEVS  :    255 

Watford  find.  Four  specimens.  BRMEDPI 
=  BRIIxTPINE,  a  common  moneyer'sname. 
He  continued  to  coin  in  Stephen's  reign  in 
this  county. 

*BBI\IEDPI :  ON :  EXEE  :  ^IiENBlEVS      255 

Sainthill's  Olla  Podrida.     22*  grs. 

*BRI\ EXEE  :         * IEVS          255 

British  Museum. 

.  BB EXEES  :        .frlxENRIEVS         255 

Watford  find. 

.  PUT  (?)  ON  :  EXEES  267 

Bari  find.  PUT  is  possibly  misread  for 
[B]BNT  =  BRAND.  See  above. 


196  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

.  .  .  AWI  :  OX  :  EXEES          .frhEXRIE  .  .  255 

Watford  find.     Probably  for  BBIhTWI 

.  .  .  ELI\I :  ON  :  EX  .  .  .  IxENBIEVS  B       255 

Watford  find.     Two  specimens.     Probably  for 
BBIhTPI. 

'  *  .         .  ON  :  EXEES  :  .  hENRIEVS  B         262 


British     Museum.       Probably    the    money er 
would  be  BBAND. 


.  .  .  ON   EXEES  ifrl\ S  :         255 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  Probably  from  the  Battle  find. 

Powell  Sale,  1877.  255 


GLOUCESTER. 

GLEAWCEASTER,  GLEATJCEASTEB,  GLEAWAXCEASTEB,  Q-LOVE- 
CEASTER.  GLOVERNIA,  GLAVORNA,  GLEVUM  ;  Domesday, 
GLOWECESTRE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  GLOECESTBE. 

Gloucester  was  a  British  city  and  Roman  station  at  the 
dawn  of  our  history,  and  later  the  Cair-Glotc,  or  "  fair 
city "  of  Nennius.  It  was  conquered  by  the  Saxons  in 
577.  Alfred  the  Great  probably  constituted  it  a  royal  city, 
for  it  is  mentioned  as  such  in  a  charter  of  Eadgar.  Ethel- 
fleda  was  buried  and  Athelstan  died  here.  The  Danes 
ravaged  it  on  more  than  one  occasion,  and  towards  the 
close  of  the  Saxon  era  it  had  become  customary  for  the 
King  to  hold  his  Christmas  Court  at  Gloucester. 

1067.  Brihtric,  Ealdonnan  of  Gloucestershire,  was  im- 
prisoned at  Winchester,  and  died  there.  His  estates 
were  given  by  William  to  his  Queen  Matilda,  but  these 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.      197 

estates  would  not  include  the  royal  city.  Never- 
theless, she  is  said  to  have  caused  the  citizens  to 
be  deprived  of  their  charter  of  rights,  and  probably 
thus  acquired  the  city. 

1088.  November  2nd. — Death  of   Queen    Matilda.     The 
city,  if  hers,  would  now  revert  to  the  King. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  Confessor's  time  the 
city  paid  £86  to  the  King,  and  certain  royalties  of 
honey  and  iron — the  latter,  no  doubt,  from  the 
Forest  of  Dean — for  nails  for  the  King's  ships. 
Now  it  returns  £ 60  of  20  pennies  to  the  ounce, 
and  from  the  mint  the  King  has  £20.  Sixteen 
houses  had  been  demolished  for  the  erection  of  the 
castle,  and  14  were  laid  waste — probably  burnt  in  the 
troubles  of  1067.  Walter  de  Gloucester,  son  of 
Roger  de  Pistres,  was  castellan  of  Gloucester. 

1089.  The  present  cathedral  founded. 

1090.  The   "Honour  of  Gloucester"   formed   by  Wil- 
liam II  and  granted  to  Robert  Fitz  Hamon.     See 
Bristol  for  the  devolution  of  the  Honour  and  history 
of  its  grantees. 

1100.  July  15. — Consecration   of  the  cathedral.     (Flo- 
rence.) 

1101.  "  The  city  of  Gloucester  was  destroyed  by  fire, 
together  with   the    principal   monastery   (the  cathe- 
dral) and   others,  on   Thursday,  the   6th   of  June. 
(Florence.) 

1122.  Lent. — "  Fire  fell  on  the  top  of  the  tower,  and 
burned  the  whole  monastery  and  all    the  treasures 
in  it  excepting  a  tew  books."     (Sax.  Chron.) 

1123.  Feb.  2. — "The  King  sent  his  writs  overall  Eng- 
land, and  desired   his    bishops,  his  abbots,  and  his 
thanes,  that  they  should  all  come  to  the  meeting  of 
his  Witan  at    Gloucester    on    Candlemas    Day,  and 
they  obeyed."     (Sax.  Chron.) 

1124.  Henry    "  sent   Hugh    de    Montfort    to   England, 
and  caused  him    to   be  put  in  strong  bonds  in  the 
castle  of  Gloucester."     (Sax.  Chron.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— Milo  Fitz  Walter  (de  Gloucester) 
is  sheriff  of  the  county,  and  outlays  £7  6s.  2d.  on  the 
work — probably  a  continuation  of  the  building — of 
the  "  Tower "  of  Gloucester.  "  The  burgesses  of 
Gloucester  owe  30  marks  of  silver  if  they  should  be 
able  to  recover  their  effects  ('  pecuniam,'  see  p.  179) 
by  the  King's  justice,  which  were  taken  away  from 


198  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

them  into  Ireland."  [This  is  probably  an  allowance 
originally  made  to  the  citizens  as  a  set-off  against  the 
raid  of  "Harold's  son  with  a  fleet  from  Ireland"  into 
the  mouth  of  the  Avon  in  1067.  See  p.  119.]  The 
city  pays  in  auxilium  £13  8s.  8d. 

1134.  Kobert,  Duke  of  Normandy,  dies  in  Cardiff  Castle, 
and  is  ceremoniously  buried  at  Gloucester.  (Wen- 
do  ver.) 

The  name  of  Gloucester  first  appears  upon  a  coin  of 
Alfred  the  Great.  Coins  of  Athelstan  were  also  struck 
here,  and  from  Eadgar  to  the  close  of  the  Saxon  period 
the  name  of  every  King  appears  on  the  coinage  of  this 
mint. 

"We  have  seen  that  Gloucester  was  a  royal  city  and 
therefore  the  mint  would  belong  to  the  King,  though,  as 
it  is  not  mentioned  in  Domesday  as  returning  firma  to  the 
Confessor,  it  was  probably  farmed  to  the  citizens  then,  and 
included  in  the  £36  and  royalties  they  paid  to  him. 

This  would  be  under  the  charter  of  which  Queen  Matilda 
obtained  the  revocation  in  1067.  Gloucester  must  have 
suffered  at  that  time  before  it  submitted  to  William,  as 
otherwise  the  fourteen  houses  mentioned  in  Domesday  as 
laid  waste  are  unaccounted  for.  On  the  revocation  of  the 
charter  the  city  and  mint  would  fall  to  the  Queen  and 
so  remain  until  her  death  in  1083. 

That  Gloucester  was  again  the  King's  in  1086  is  clear 
from  Domesday,  and  that  the  mint  was  then  paying  him 
a  firma  of  £20.  This  would  be  a  payment  "  by  number  " 
— twenty  pennies  being  credited  as  an  ounce,  for  it  was 
not  until  the  reign  of  Henry  II  that  "  one  weight  and 
money  [value]  were  established  throughout  the  Kingdom 
and  every  county  bound  by  payment  in  a  common 
standard."  ("  Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer.") 

In  1090,  William  II  formed  the  Honour  of  Gloucester, 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.      199 

including  the  city  of  Bristol,  and  granted  it  to  Robert 
Fitz  Hamon.  Therefore  both  mints  passed  to  him  as 
before  described  under  Bristol. 

On  Henry's  accession  one  would  expect  the  same  types 
to  be  struck  here  under  Robert  Fitz  Hamon  as  at  Bristol, 
viz.,  254  (1102-4)  and  253  (1104-1106).  But  in  June, 
1101,  "  the  city  of  Gloucester  was  destroyed  by  fire,"  and 
so  between  the  limits  for  such,  coinage,  as  explained  under 
the  former  mint,  namely  from  1102  to  the  autumn  of 
1104,  any  coinage  here  was  most  unlikely. 

The  subsequent  coinage  of  this  mint  has  already  been 
dealt  with  in  detail  under  Bristol,  and,  therefore,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  repeat  it  here. 

It  will,  however,  be  noticed  that  when  the  Gloucester 
mint  re-opens  under  Earl  Robert  in  1121-1123,  the 
event  is  recorded  for  us  by  the  curious  "mule"  coin 
described  and  illustrated  as  Fig.  O,  under  type  263, 
page  72.  The  obverse  is  of  that  type  (1119-1121),  but 
the  reverse  is  of  Hawkins'  type  IV  (1121-1123).  It  is 
barely  requisite,  therefore,  to  remark  that  the  coin  itself 
could  not  have  been  issued  until  the  latter  date  (1121- 
1123).  Nor  does  it  follow  that  the  obverse  was  from  a 
Gloucester  die  at  all,  for  the  mint  had  been  dormant  since 
the  reign  of  Rufus,  and  the  moneyer,  to  restore  the  coin- 
age, would  almost  certainly  have  been  imported  from 
elsewhere.  He  probably  brought  this  obverse  die  with 
him,  as,  if  type  263  had  ever  been  struck  here,  we  should 
expect  to  find  it  represented  in  its  entirety  both  here  and 
at  Bristol,  which  is  not  the  case.  Still,  there  is  no  objec- 
tion on  the  ground  of  date  to  263  having  been  a  Gloucester 
type,  for  it  was  still  current  until  about  Michaelmas, 
1121,  which  is  well  within  Mr.  Round's  limits  for 
the  date  of  the  creation  of  the  Earldom  of  Gloucester. 


200  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

The  only  difference  it  would  make  would  either  be  that 
Robert  received  the  charter  of  his  earldom  within  the 
first  six  months  of  Mr.  Round's  limit  of  time,  or  that 
upon  his  marriage  he  received  a  first  charter  of  confirma- 
tion in  Fitz  Hamon's  Honour  of  Gloucester. 

But  there  is  a  little  affirmative  evidence  that  this 
obverse  die  was  really  brought  from  the  London  mint. 
When  Earl  Robert  revived  the  coinage  here  after  an 
interval  of  so  many  years,  the  most  natural  mint  for  him 
to  borrow  a  money er  from  would  be  that  of  his  father  at 
London.  This  moneyer  at  Gloucester  spells  his  name 
ELFPINE  on  the  mule  coin  (1121-1123)  and  ALFPINE 
on  types  262  (1123-1131)  and  255  (1131-1135).  Now  all 
these  conditions  fit  in  exactly  with  the  history  of 
ALFPINE  of  London,  and  as  the  question  of  the  migra- 
tion of  moneyers  is  of  some  importance,  this  case  in 
point  may  be  taken  as  an  example  of  the  general  system. 

No  man  could  or  would  undertake  the  responsibilities 
and  dangers  of  the  office  of  a  moneyer  unless  he  had  first 
thoroughly  acquired  the  experience  and  art  of  coining.  We 
know  that  William  Fitz  Otho,  the  hereditary  designer  of 
the  dies,  had  to  serve  his  apprenticeship,  and  we  may  take 
it  that  amongst  the  moneyers — whose  trade  was  so  much 
akin  to  his — a  similar  system  of  apprenticeship  prevailed. 
Therefore,  when  a  mint  had  lain  dormant  for  years,  and 
the  old  moneyers  had  either  died  or  obtained  office  in  other 
mints,  it  was  necessary,  upon  its  revival,  to  obtain  a 
qualified  moneyer  from  elsewhere.  He  would  initiate 
the  first  coinage,  receive  apprentices  from  the  district, 
and,  probably,  when  he  was  no  longer  required,  return  to 
his  own  people  and  town.  Mr.  L  A.  Lawrence,  therefore, 
was  right  when  he  pointed  out>  in  his  paper  on  the  Barn- 
staple  mint,  in  1897,  that  our  coins  seem  to  indicate  that, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       201 

in  some  instances  at  least,  the  same  moneyer's  name 
appears  at  more  mints  than  one.  A  moneyer,  too,  who 
had  once  been  chosen  to  initiate  a  coinage  at  a  dormant 

o 

mint  would,  for  obvious  reasons,  be  more  likely  to  be 
again  selected  for  a  similar  purpose  at  another. 

ALFPINE,  of  London,  had  been  coining  there  in  every 
type,  with  one  exception,  between  the  years  1112  and  1121, 
his  last  type  being  263  (1119—1121),  which  is  that  of  the 
obverse  die  of  this  mule  coin.  He  used  both  ALFPINE 
and  ELFPINE  as  his  name.  He  now  disappears  from  our 
London  coins,  and  the  name  ELFPINE  appears  at  Glou- 
cester, 1121-1123.  The  Gloucester  mint  again  becomes 
dormant  from  1123  to  1129,  during  Earl  Robert's  visits  to 
Normandy,  so  Alfwine  returns  to  London  in  the  interim 
and  we  find  his  name  on  the  coins  of  that  mint  of  type 
265  (1126-1128),  but  now  spelt  ALFPINE.  In  1129  we 
find  him  once  more  at  Gloucester,  when  the  mint  reopens 
with  type  262  (1129-1131),  also  now  as  ALFPINE,  and 
as  such  he  continues  to  coin  here  on  type  255  (1131- 
1135).  But  during  this  issue  four  other  moneyers,  pro- 
bably his  apprentices  now  duly  qualified,  join  him. 
In  1133,  on  Earl  Robert's  return  to  Normandy,  the 
Gloucester  mint  again  becomes  dormant,  so  ALFPINE's 
name  appears  on  the  remainder  of  the  issue  of  255  at 
London.  Finally,  when  the  Gloucester  coinage  is 
revived  in  Stephen's  reign,  we  find  him  there  once 
more. 

Not  only,  therefore,  do  the  types  never  overlap,  but  the 
moneyer  who  spelt  his  name  with  both  A  and  E  in 
London  up  to  1121  spells  it  with  E  at  Gloucester  in 
1121-1123,  then  he  finally  adopts  the  form  ALFPINE  at 
London  in  1126,  and  so  it  is  similarly  continued  on  the 
Gloucester  coins  after  that  date. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  D   D 


202 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


The   Gloucester    mint    was    intermittently   continued 
until  the  reign  of  Henry  III. 


COINS. 
^ELFPINE  ON  6LOP  : 


EEX 


Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  Fig. 
0,  page  72.  As  to  this  coin  and  moneyer 
see  above. 


•frALFPINE  :  ON  SLOP  : 
W.  S.  Lincoln  &  Son. 

*ALFPINE     .  .    6  .  .  P  v 
Watford  find. 

^ALFPINE  :  ON  6LOE 
Watford  find. 

*  ...  PINE  :  ON  :  6LOPE 
British  Museum. 

.J.ALFPI1SE  :  ON  :  6LO  .  E 
British  Museum. 


•frftENRIEVS   R  :     262 


S  R:    262 


•frhENRIEVS 


255 


255 


.frhENRIEVS  R       255 


:  ON  :  6LOPEE 


British   Museum,    Watford    find.      Engraved 
Archceologia,  xxi.,  540. 

•I.RODBERT  :  ON  :  GLOE         *I\ENRICVS 

British  Museum.     Robert  was  coining  here  as 
late  as  Henry  II's  reign. 


.  DBERT  :  ON  :  6LOE  : 
Watford  find. 


.  .  EN  .  .  EVS 


255 


255 


225 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY    I.       203 

•frSAPINE  :  ON  :  6LOPE  *I\ENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find.  Two  specimens.  Sawine  also 
coined  here  as  late  as  Henry  ITs  reign. 
The  name  appears  on  Saxon  coins  of 
Gloucester. 

:  ON  :  GLOPEE  :        ^IxENEIEVS          255 

J.  G.  Murdoch.  PI.  VII,  No.  11.  From  the 
Montagu  1896  Sale.  A  larger  bust  than 
usual.  The  moneyer  may  be  the  ThVEEIL 
or  TVEEML  coining  on  this  type  at  Bristol. 

.  .  .  D  ON  :  6LO  .  255 

Watford  find.  The  moneyer  is  probably  the 
WIBEET  who  coined  here  for  Stephen,  and 
a  "  WIDAED  "  is  mentioned  in  Domesday 
as  one  of  the  King's  tenants  at  Gloucester. 

HhWIBEED  :  ON  :  6LOP  *I\ENEIEVS  :         255 

1    British  Museum.     From  Mr.  Rashleigh. 


HADEW. 

"HADEW"  is  given  in  Ruding's  list  of  mints,  and 
various  attributions  from  Hedingham  to  Haddon  have 
been  attempted  for  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  not  the 
name  of  a  mint,  but  is  that  of  a  moneyer,  which  has 
found  its  way  into  the  wrong  list.  It  is  taken  from  the 
engraving,  Ruding,  Sup.  ii.,  2,  10,  the  reverse  legend  of 
which  commences  ^«I\ADEW.  The  coin  is  the  one  also 
illustrated,  Hawkins  259,  and  is  in  the  British  Museum. 
In  support  of  this  correction  it  may  be  pointed  out  that 
HADEW  (the  Lombardic  "fi"  is  not  used  by  Ruding  in 
the  letterpress  of  his  work)  is  consequently  omitted  from 
the  list  of  moneyers,  which,  of  course,  would  not  otherwise 
have  occurred.  The  coin,  however,  is  of  one  of  the  types 
here  assigned  to  the  reign  of  Stephen. 


204  NI'MISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


HASTINGS  (SUSSEX). 

HASTINGA-CEASTER,      H.ESTINGA,      HESTINGA,     HESTING-POKT  ; 
Domesday,  HASTINGES  ;  Pipe  Roll,  HASTINGA. 

Although  popular  etymology  derives  Hastings  from  the 
name  of  the  Danish  chief  Hastein,  of  Alfred's  time,  there 
are  vestiges  in  the  earthworks  of  the  Castle  which  indicate 
a  far  more  remote  origin  for  the  town.  Athelstan  would 
never  have  constituted  a  Danish  foundation  of  893  into  a 
Saxon  mint  town  of  928.  Moreover,  Hastings  is  men- 
tioned in  a  charter  of  King  Offa.  Its  historical  importance, 
however,  certainly  dates  from  the  epoch  of  the  Danish 
wars,  and  a  passage  in  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  under  the  year 
1011,  infers  that  the  Honour  of  Hastings  had  then  already 
a  separate  jurisdiction  from  that  of  the  county,  viz. : — 

"  (The  Danes  had  over-run)  all  Kent,  and  Sussex,  and  Hast- 
ings, and  Surrey,  and  Berkshire,  and  Hampshire,  and  much  of 
Wiltshire." 

In  1049  the  men  of  Hastings  captured  two  ships  of 
Earl  Sweyn's  fleet,  and  in  1052  they  joined  Earl  Godwin's 
revolt. 

1066.  "  Then  came  William,  Duke  of  Normandy,  into 
Pevensey  on  the  eve  of  St.  Michaelmas ;  and,  soon 
after  they  were  on  their  way,  they  constructed  a 
castle  at  Hestmg-port."  (Saxon  Chronicle.) 

"  Duke  William  went  afterwards  (after  the  battle) 
again  to  Hastings,  and  there  awaited  to  see  whether 
the  people  would  submit  to  him."  (Saxon  Chronicle.) 

1068.  Humphrey  de  Tilleul,  "who  had  received  the 
custody  of  Hastings  from  the  first  day  it  (the  Norman 
castle)  was  built,"  relinquished  William's  cause  in 
England  and  was  never  able  to  recover  his  Honour 
or  domains.  (Orderic.) 

1080-1086.     Robert  d'Eu  receives  from  the  King  great 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      205 

revenues  and  Honours  in  England  (Orderic).   Amongst 
these  was  the  Honour  of  Hastings. 

1086.  Domesday. — Except  for  an  incidental  reference 
under  "Bexelei"  to  the  time  when  "  King  William 
gave  the  castelry  of  Hastings  to  the  Earl "  (of  Eu), 
there  is  no  mention  of  this  place  in  the  Survey. 

1089.  Robert  d'Eu  is  engaged  in  the  Normandy  wars, 
and  mentioned  as  resident  beyond  the  Seine.  (Orderic.) 

1090.  Approximate  date  of  his  death.     He  is  succeeded 
by  his  son  William  d'Eu. 

1094.  William  II,  on  his  way  to  Normandy,  stays  at 
Hastings  during  the  dedication  of  Battle  Abbey.  Later 
in  the  year,  20,000  men  are  mustered  here  "in  readi- 
ness for  crossing  the  sea,  but  Ralph  Passe-Flambard, 
by  the  King's  command,  withheld  the  pay  which  had 
been  allotted  for  their  maintenance  at  the  rate  of  ten 
pence  for  each  man  and  ordered  them  to  return  to 
their  homes ;  the  money  he  remitted  to  the  King." 
(Florence.) 

1096.  At  the  Court  at  Salisbury,  Geoffrey  Bainard  accused 
William  d'Eu,  the  King's  relative,  saying  that  he  had 
been  concerned  in  the  conspiracy  against  the  King, 
and  for  this  cause  he  fought  with  him  and  overcame 
him  in  single  combat ;  and  after  he  (d'Eu)  was  van- 
quished the  King  commanded  that  his  eyes  should  be 
put  out."  (Saxon  Chronicle.)  He  left  a  son  Henry 
d'Eu. 

1101.  Henry  I  collects  his  forces  at  Hastings  and  Peven- 
sey  to  oppose  the  landing  of  Duke  Robert.  (Hoveden  ; 
Saxon  Chronicle.) 

1101.  Henry  d'Eu  witnesses  the  treaty  between  the  King 
and  Robert,  Earl  of  Flanders,  at  Douvres,  Normandy. 
(Foedera.) 

1103.  Similarly  the  second  treaty. 

1104.  Welcomes  the  King  to  Normandy.     (Orderic.) 

1118.  Revolts  in  Normandy  in  favour  of  William  Clito, 
son  of  Duke  Robert,  but  is  arrested  there  by  Henry 
and  thrown  into  prison  until  he  surrenders  his  for- 
tresses in  Normandy.     (Orderic.) 

1119.  August. — He,  however,  is  the  first  named,  after 
the  King's  sons,  amongst  Henry's  chief  supporters  at 
the  battle  of  Bremule.     (Orderie.) 

1127.  Under  this  year,  Orderic  speaks  of  him  as  being 
again  amongst  those  in  arms  for  William  Clito,  and 
adds  that  a  great  number  of  these  lords  were  made 


206  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

prisoners  and  either  disinherited  or  put  to  death. 
The  passage  may,  however,  refer  to  the  previous 
revolt. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Henry  d'Eu  is  evidently  not  in 
England,  as  he  is  only  three  times  formally  referred  to 
throughout  the  Roll.  William  Fitz  Robert  de  Hastings 
(probably  his  uncle)  fails  to  account  for  the  Lesta- 
gium  (or  ship  customs)  of  Hastings  and  of  Rye ;  but 
as  no  amount  is  stated  his  duty  was  probably  to 
merely  return  that  the  fleet  was  equipped.  A  defec- 
tive entry  shows  that  .  .  .  was  paying  fees  "  for  a 
writ  of  right  to  the  land  of  Boneface  his  relative." 

To  this  mint  was  assigned  one  moneyer  under  Athelstan's 
Law,  but  we  have  no  coins  bearing  its  name  until  the  reign 
of  Ethelred  II.,  when  it  seems  to  have  had  at  least  two 
moneyers  at  a  time.  We  have  already  discussed  under 
Dover  the  probability  that  the  men  of  Hastings  with 
those  of  tbe  other  south-coast  towns,  which  were  subse- 
quently to  become  the  Cinque  Ports,  received  their 
privileges  and  mints  by  charters  from  Ethelred,  in  return 
for  supplying  the  King's  fleet.  Hastings'  contribution, 
similarly  to  that  of  Dover,  was  twenty- one  ships  fully 
manned  for  fifteen  days  in  a  year.  This  condition  of 
affairs  probably  prevailed  until  the  Conquest,  and  through- 
out that  period  there  is  a  plentiful  issue  of  coinage  here 
bearing  the  name  of  every  king.  The  number  of  moneyers 
seems  to  have  been  increased  to  three. 

William,  immediately  on  his  landing,  ravaged  the 
district,  and  granted  Hastings  to  Humphrey  de  Tilleul. 
The  mint  now  became  a  private  one,  and  followed  the 
fortunes  of  its  grantee.  Hence,  when  in  1068  Humphrey 
returned  to  Normandy,  its  issue,  which  had  been  continued 
until  then,  was  stopped.  William  was  much  incensed 
against  those  luxurious  knights  who  gave  up  the  struggle 
and  returned  home  at  that  time,  but  it  would  not  be  for 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.       207 

several  years  that  lie  could  be  assured  that  their  desertion 
was  to  be  permanent.  Hence  the  expression  in  Orderic 
that  "  neither  they  nor  their  heirs  were  ever  able  to  re- 
cover the  honour  and  domains  which  they  had  already 
gained  and  relinquished  on  this  occasion."  The  Lordship 
of  Hastings,  and  consequently  the  mint  also,  lay  dormant 
therefore  until  about  the  year  1082,  when  William  granted 
the  Honour  to  Robert  D'Eu.  The  mint  was  then  revived, 
but  the  number  of  moneyers  reduced  to  two.  In  1089 
Robert  joined  the  Normandy  wars,  and  the  mint  was  again 
closed  until  his  son,  William  D'Eu,  succeeded  to  Hastings. 
In  1096,  at  the  instigation  of  his  brother-in-law,  the  Earl 
of  Chester  (Orderic),  D'Eu  was  accused  of  treason.  He 
appealed  to  the  ordeal  of  battle,  was  defeated,  and  practi- 
cally executed  by  torture.  This  caused  a  forfeiture  of  his 
estate,  and  therefore  the  mint  was  in  abeyance  during  the 
remainder  of  the  reign. 

On  Henry's  accession  the  heir,  Henry  D'Eu,  was  at  once 
received  into  favour,  no  doubt  because  he  was  nephew  to 
the  King's  Councillor,  Hugh,  Earl  of  Chester.  With  the 
exception  of  a  visit  to  Treport  and  Douvres  in  1101,  he  is 
in  England  until  1103,  and  witnesses  several  charters,  being 
no  doubt  present  with  Henry  at  Hastings  in  1101.  Types 
251  (1100-1102)  and  254  (1102-1104)  are  issued  from  this 
mint.  He  perhaps  accompanies  the  Earl  of  Leicester  and 
Robert  Fitz  Hamon  to  Normandy  in  1103,  for,  with  them, 
he  "honourably  receives"  the  King  there  in  1104;  but 
as  he  is  not  mentioned  as  being  present  at  the  battle  of 
Tinchebrai,  he  had  probably  returned  home  before  that 
date,  1106.  It  was  now  that  he  granted  his  charter  to 
Battle  Abbey,  for  it  was  confirmed  by  Henry  at  Windsor 
(1107).  Hence  types  253  (1104-1106)  and  252  (1106- 
1108)  are  struck  at  Hastings. 


208  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

In  1107  he  returns  to  Treport  in  Normandy  (Trtport 
Chartulary],  and  seems  to  have  resided  entirely  in  that 
country,  for  between  that  date  and  1116  his  name  appears 
in  several  Normandy  charters.  Hence  the  English 
chroniclers  do  not  mention  him,  and  his  mint  at  Hastings 
is  dormant.  This  is  supported  by  the  evidence  of  Orderic 
that  in  1118  he  is  one  of  the  Norman  Earls  plotting  treason 
in  favour  of  William  Clito.  He  is  arrested  there,  but, 
no  doubt  to  regain  the  King's  confidence,  takes  a  fore- 
most part  in  the  battle  of  Bremule  in  August,  1119. 
After  this  battle  we  are  told  that  most  of  the  barons 
engaged  in  it  accompanied  Henry  on  his  return  to  Eng- 
land in  November,  1120.  The  mint,  therefore,  immediately 
reopens  with  type  IY  (1121-1123),  and  this  is  followed  by 
258  (1123-1125).  The  Barnstaple  charter  proves  that 
he  must  have  returned  to  Normandy  in  1124  or  1125, 
for  he  was  at  Perriers  in  1125.  In  1127  it  would  appear, 
from  Orderic,  that  D'Eu  is  again  in  revolt  in  Normandy, 
and  he  seems  never  to  have  returned  to  England  during 
the  lifetime  of  King  Henry.  He  was  certainly  not  in 
England  in  1130,  or  we  should  hear  more  of  him  in  the 
Pipe  Boll;  or  in  1131,  when  he  would  have  attended 
the  great  council  of  Northampton,  which  he  failed  to  do. 
On  the  other  hand  the  charters  to  Fecamp  and  St. 
Wandrille's,  Rouen,  prove  him  to  have  been  in  Normandy 
in  1130  and  1131.  From  1125,  therefore,  to  the  end  of 
the  reign  the  mint  is  again  dormant. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  entry  in  the  Boll  relating  to 
the  land  of  Boneface  is  defective,  for  the  name  is  so 
unusual  that  it,  in  all  probability,  refers  to  the  moneyer 
whose  name  BONIFACE  appears  on  type  IV  (1121- 
1123).  So  uncommon  is  it,  at  least  as  a  lay  name,  that  it 
does  not  occur  upon  any  other  coin  or  in  any  other  early 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      209 

Roll  or  charter.  Boneface  is  dead,  and  a  relative,  prob- 
ably also  a  moneyer,  is  claiming  his  land.  The  writ  " pro 
recto"  as  we  have  seen  on  page  115,  discloses  more  than 
a  mere  succession,  and  suggests  the  possibility  that 
Boneface  had  been  one  of  the  victims  of  the  great  Inquisi- 
tion of  1125,  and  that  his  relative  (cognatus),  not  being  a 
son,  petitioned  against  the  forfeiture  of  his  property. 

Hastings  was  the  chief  seat  of  the  D'Eus  in  Stephen's 
time,  and  its  coinage  was  then  plentiful,  but  the  mint  was 
finally  closed  towards  the  end  of  that  reign. 

COINS. 
.frBARLVIT  ON  MIS  *  HENRI  BEX  254 

British  Museum.  The  moneyer's  name  is  pro- 
bably a  form  of  BARTLEET  (Bartelot).  A 
branch  of  this  family  held  Stopham,  Sussex, 
temp.  Richard  II. 

•frBONIFXEE  ON  fiXS          *riENRIEVS  REX  :    IV 

Montagu,  1896,  £2 ;  Marsham,  1888,  £8  5s. ; 
and  Bergne,  1873,  £1  10s.,  Sales.  En- 
graved Ruding,  Sup.  ii.,  2,  6.  A  quatrefoil 
over  the  right  shoulder  on  the  obverse  and 
a  pellet  in  each  angle  of  the  reverse  cross. 
As  to  the  moneyer,  see  above. 

4.DRMAN  ON  HIEST  *HNII  REX  N  251 

British  Museum.  From  the  Cuff  Sale,  1854, 
£2  10s.  As  DRMAN  (for  DEORMAN)  simi- 
larly occurs  on  the  Steyning  coins  of  Wil- 
liam I  and  II,  this  is  probably  the  same 
moneyer. 

*DVNINE  :  ON  :  fiA  .  .     ^fiENRI  RE  252 

J.  Verity.     From  the   Allen  Sale,  1898,  and 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  K    E 


210  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

probably  Sir  Henry  Ellis'  coin  in  1869.  Tbe 
Dunincs  had  coined  here  since  the  Con- 
fessor's time. 

*DVNI  .  E  0*N  I\ASTI  hE.  RE  258 


British  Museum.  PI.  VI.  No.  4.  Engraved, 
Ruding,  Sup.  ii.,  2,  14,  and  Hawkins,  258. 
Formerly  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  B.  C. 
Roberts.  Obv.  —  A  quatrefoil  (probably  two 
if  the  coin  were  distinct)  before  the  sceptre. 
Rev.  —  iJ.DVNI[N]E  O'  in  the  outer  space, 
and  »JiN  IxASTI  in  the  inner,  In  the  centre, 
a  small  cross  (almost  obliterated  by  a  frac- 
ture). This  moneyer  was  probably  son  of 
the  above. 

.frGODRIE  ON  HSTIE  *  HENRI  REX  253 

British  Museum.  Probably  from  the  Tyssen 
Sale,  1802.  A  Godric  coined  here  for 
Rufus. 

Specimen,  Tyssen  Sale,  1802  .....    253 


HEREFORD. 

HEREFORDIA,  HAREFORDIA  ;    Domesday,  HEREFORD  and  HERE- 
FORD-PORT ;  Pipe  Roll,  HEREFORD. 

The  neighbourhood  of  Hereford  is  studded  with  the 
vestiges  of  a  prehistoric  race,  whose  industry  in  the  art  of 
war  is  evidenced  by  tier  above  tier  of  vallum  and  fosse 
upon  nearly  every  natural  stronghold.  But  the  origin  of 
the  City  itself  is  shrouded  in  obscurity.  If,  however,  it 
had  been  existent  during  the  Roman  occupation,  it  is 
unlikely  that  the  legions  would  have  chosen  Kenchester, 
some  three  miles  away,  for  the  site  of  their  great  camp 
in  this  district  in  preference  to  a  British  city  already 


A    JTUMISMAT1C    HISTORY    OP   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      211 

established.  Therefore,  the  tradition  of  its  early  Saxon 
foundation  seems  warranted  by  theory  at  least.  The  Here- 
ford district  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Saxons  about  the 
close  of  the  sixth  century,  and  a  hundred  years  later  the 
See  was  established.  Then  for  the  first  time  the  city 
itself  seems  to  be  mentioned  in  our  chronicles.  In  918 
the  men  of  Hereford  and  of  Gloucester  defeated  the 
Danish  army  in  the  West,  and  so  established  their  prowess 
that  the  city  of  Hereford  was  one  of  the  few  in  England 
which  escaped  the  general  devastation  of  those  wars.  In 
1055,  however,  the  city  was  burnt,  and  the  great  Saxon 
minster  plundered  by  the  mixed  army  of  Irish,  Welsh, 
and  Mercians  under  Algar,  the  outlawed  earl. 

1067.  "  Child  Edric  (the  Wild)  and  the  Welsh  were  dis- 
turbed this  year  and  fought  with  the  men  of  the 
castle  at  Hereford,  to  whom  they  did  much  harm." 
(Saxon  Chronicle.)  William  grants  the  "  County  of 
Hereford  "  to  his  cousin  William  Fitz  Osborn,  giving 
to  him  and  to  Walter  de  Lacy  the  charge  of  defending 
the  Marches.  (Orderic.) 

1071.  King  William  sends  Fitz  Osborn  to  Normandy,  of 
which  country  he  was  High  Steward,  to  assist  Queen 
Matilda  in  the  defence  of  the  duchy  (Orderic),  where 
he  was  slain  on  the  20th  of  February. 

He  was  succeeded  in  his  earldom  of  Hereford  and 
his  other  possessions  in  England  by  his  second  son, 
Roger  de  Breteuil,  "  for  King  William  thus  distributed 
his  inheritance  amongst  his  sons."  (Orderic.) 

1075.  Earl  Roger  fortifies  Hereford  and  joins  the  rebel- 
lion of  Ralph  de  Guader  and  Waltheof.  He  is  sum- 
moned to  the  King's  court,  convicted  of  treason,  and 
"detained  in  captivity,  even  after  the  King's  death, 
until  his  own  death  released  him  from  it.  His  two 
sons,  Reynold  and  Koger,  young  men  of  great  pro- 
mise, who  are  now  (probably  about  the  year  1130)  in 
the  service  of  King  Henry  and  in  great  distress,  are 
waiting  for  the  exercise  of  his  clemency,  which  appears 
to  them  sufficiently  tardy."  (Orderic.) 

1086.     Domesday    notes. — In   the    Confessor's   time   the 


NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

resident  garrison  of  Hereford  numbered  104  within  and 
without  the  wall,  and  had  their  customs  as  set  out  in 
detail.  These  customs  provided  for  the  defence  of  the 
city  and  for  forays  against  the  Welsh.  "  There  were 
seven  moneyers  here.  One  of  these  was  the  moneyer 
of  the  Bishop.  When  the  money  was  renewed  (i.e., 
the  type  changed)  each  of  them  gave  eighteen  shillings 
for  receiving  the  dies,  and  within  one  month  after- 
wards each  of  them  gave  to  the  King  twenty  shillings, 
and  likewise  the  Bishop  had  twenty  shillings  from 
his  moneyer.  When  the  King  came  into  the  city  the 
moneyers  made  as  many  pennies  for  him  as  he  chose, 
but,  of  course,  of  the  King's  silver,  and  these  seven 
had  their  sac  and  soc,  In  case  of  the  death  of  a 
moneyer  of  the  King,  the  King  had  a  duty  of  twenty 
shillings  ;  but  if  the  moneyer  died  intestate,  the  King 
had  all  his  effects.  If  the  Sheriff  went  with  a  force 
into  Wales,  these  men  went  with  him.  If  any  sum- 
moned did  not  go  he  forfeited  forty  shillings  to  the 
King." 

Now  the  King  has  the  city  of  Hereford  in  lordship. 
This  city  returns  to  the  King  sixty  pounds  "  by 
number  in  standard  pennies  ("  candidis  denariis1'). 
It  is  mentioned  that  the  burgesses  retain  the  above- 
mentioned  customs  with  certain  modifications  in 
favour  of  Norman  citizens. 

1100.  Gerard,  Bishop  of  Hereford,  raised  to  the  Arch- 
bishopric of  York. 

1102.  A  charter  executed  by  King  Henry  "at  Hereford," 
and  witnessed  by  Urso  d  Abetot  of  Worcester,  shows 
the  King  to  have  been  here  about  this  date,  as  Urso 
died  early  in  the  reign. 

Roger,  the  King's  Larderer,  appointed  Bishop,  but 
dies  before  consecration.  Raynelm,  the  Queen's 
Chancellor,  appointed,  but  refuses  investiture  pending 
settlement  of  the  King's  dispute  with  Anselm. 

1107.     Is  duly  elected  and  consecrated. 

1115.  Death  of  Bishop  Raynelm.  Geoffrey,  the  King's 
Chaplain,  succeeds.  (Florence.)  It  is  now  that  the 
Norman  cathedral  is  consecrated. 

1119.  February  3rd.  Death  of  Bishop  Geoffrey.  Richard, 
the  Vice-Chancellor,  succeeds,  112U.  (Monasticon.) 

1127.     Bishop  Richard  dies  at  Ledbury. 

1130.  Pipe  Eoll  notes. — The  See  at  this  time  is  vacant, 
and  therefore  we  find  Geoffrey,  the  King's  Chancellor, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    EEIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      213 

returning  £4  12s.  6d.  [arrears  of]  the  previous  year's 
Jirmaofthe  diocese.  As  he  also  accounts  for  £8  17s.  2d. 
[arrears  of]  the  previous  year,  and  £104  9s.  6d. 
for  the  current  year's  firma  of  the  manors  of  which  he 
had  the  custody,  these  no  doubt  include  Hereford. 
He  has  evidently  been  only  recently  appointed  Chan- 
cellor, for  he  owes  £3,006  18s.  4d.  for  the  seal — an 
enormous  sum  in  those  days.  Under  Pembroke,  we 
find  the  entry,  "  Gillopatric,  the  moneyer,  accounts 
for  £4,  for  forfeit  of  the  previous  year's  money"  (p 
forisf  vetis  monete.  Veteris  is  used  throughout  the 
Roll  for  the  previous  year). 
1131.  Robert  de  Betun  appointed  Bishop. 

Although  not  mentioned  in  Athelstan's  Law,  the  name 
of  this  mint  first  appears  upon  his  coins,  but  only  one 
moneyer  seems  to  have  then  been  in  office.  As  his  name 
(HVNLAF)  occurs  on  Eadmund's  coins,  no  doubt  coinage 
was  continued  here,  for  when  types  were  issued  on  the 
older  principle  of  bearing  a  moneyer's  name  alone,  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  locate  the  mint.  This,  as  previously 
explained,  must  be  understood  to  apply  to  all  mints 
existing  prior  to  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II.  Hereford  again 
appears  on  the  coins  of  Eadwig,  and  from  Ethelred  II  to 
Harold  II  coinage  here  is  continued.  The  number  of 
moneyers  is  gradually  increased  until  under  Canute — in 
corroboration  of  Domesday — we  find  the  names  of  seven 
upon  the  coins  of  this  mint.  We  can  even  distinguish 
that  of  the  Bishop,  for  on  the  dies  of  one  of  them  appears 
as  a  difference  an  annulet  or  ring — the  symbol  of  Episco- 
palian investiture  (see  Peterborough  and  York). 

Domesday  gives  us  some  interesting  details  of  the 
monetary  system  prevailing  here  in  the  days  of  the 
Confessor.  These,  except  for  the  special  provision  that 
the  moneyers  should  accompany  the  Sheriff  in  his  expe- 
ditions against  the  Welsh,  may  be  taken  as  applying 
generally  to  the  customs  of  all  the  Royal  mints  at  that 


214  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

period — subject,  of  course,  to  variations  in  the  amounts  of 
the  fees  according  to  the  value  of  the  output  of  the  local 
mint.  They  are  quite  clear  and  concise,  and  comment  is 
unnecessary,  save  upon  this.  The  Bishop,  it  will  be 
observed,  received  the  fees  from  his  moneyer,  and  even 
on  that  moneyer's  death  the  King  had  no  relief,  for  the 
Bishop  was  a  grantee ;  so  in  all  the  grantees'  mints  the 
fees  of  the  moneyers  were  received  by  the  bishops  or 
lords,  and  the  King  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
them  ;  which  is  exactly  the  theory  of  this  work. 

Upon  the  Conquest  all  this  is  changed.  William 
grants  the  Earldom  of  Hereford,  and  therefore  the  mint 
with  it,  to  his  relative  William  Fitz  Osborn.  Coinage 
therefore  becomes  intermittent.  The  number  of  moneyers 
is  reduced  to  three,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  infer,  the  Bishop's 
privilege,  not  being  one  established  by  the  Law  of  Athel- 
stan,  but  only  held  at  the  King's  will,  had  not  been  con- 
firmed to  him,  and  would  thus  lapse  into  the  general 
grant  to  the  earl.  Fitz  Osborn  dies  in  1071,  and  is 
succeeded  by  his  son,  Roger  de  Breteuil.  He  in  1075 
is  disinherited  for  rebellion,  and  with  him  the  house  of 
Fitz  Osborn  disappears  from  the  history  of  Hereford. 

If  the  mint  of  Hereford  had  been  created  by  charter  to 
William  Fitz  Osborn  as  grantee  it  would  now  lapse,  but 
this  was  not  the  case.  It  was  always  a  royal  mint  until 
William  I  granted  the  earldom,  together  with  all  his  rights 
and  privileges  therein,  to  Fitz  Osborn.  In  other  words, 
the  King  assigned  his  existing  privileges  to  the  Earl,  and 
therefore,  on  the  escheat  for  treason,  the  earl's  enjoyment 
only  of  the  privileges  was  forfeited,  not  the  privileges 
themselves. 

It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  William  at  first  in- 
tended this  forfeiture  to  be  permanent,  for  he  hesitated  a 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HEXKY  I.      215 

long  time  as  to  the  punishment  of  Waltheof  in  the  same 
conspiracy.  Earl  Roger,  on  being  summoned  to  the 
court  for  trial,  had  the  courage  to  attend,  and  Orderic  im- 
plies that  William  would  have  subsequently  pardoned 
him,  for  he  adds  that  even  in  prison  "  he  caused  the 
King  great  annoyance,  and  rendered  him  implacable  by 
his  obstinate  contumacy."  Hence  for  some  years  the 
mint  lies  dormant,  waiting  events. 

In  the  Confessor's  time  the  city  had  returned  only  £18, 
but  in  1086  it  is  in  lordship  to  the  King  at  a  firma  of 
£60,  so  it  is  probable  that  when  William  in  1081  "  led 
his  army  into  Wales  "  (Sax.  Chron.),  he  finally  re-entered 
into  possession  of  the  earldom  and  farmed  the  city, 
together  with  the  mint,  to  the  burgesses  at  the  increased 
firma  of  £60.  This  would  account  for  the  three  moneyers 
of  the  earl's  time,  instead  of  the  seven  of  the  Confessor's, 
appearing  upon  our  Hereford  coins  from  about  the  year 
1082  to  the  death  of  William  II. 

Earl  Roger's  two  sons  seem,  from  Orderic's  description 
of  them,  to  have  been  born  subsequently  to  their  father's 
fall.  They  are  brought  up  at  Henry's  court,  and  are 
evidently  in  the  full  expectation  of  succeeding  to  the 
earldom.  Henry  on  his  accession  may  have  intended  to 
reinstate  them  and  therefore  never  confirmed  the  charter 
to  the  burgesses.  But  it  is  more  likely  that  the  citizens 
were  implicated  in  the  neighbouring  rebellion  at  Shrews- 
bury under  Robert  de  Beleme  as  their  feudal  Lord  of 
the  Marches.  A  charter  of  Henry  I.  granted  at  Here- 
ford, and  witnessed  by  Urso  d'Abetot,  who  died  early  in 
the  reign,  suggests  that  after  quelling  the  revolt  at 
Shrewsbury  and  Bridgnorth  in  1102,  the  King  marched 
his  army  to  Hereford,  perhaps  to  restore  order  in  that  city 
also.  It  is  at  least  significant  that  the  two  ancient  and 


216  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

prolific  mints  of  Hereford  and  Shrewsbury  are  now 
simultaneously  discontinued  and  remain  dormant  for  many 
years. 

In  1127  Richard,  Bishop  of  Hereford,  dies,  and  the 
Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  in  1129-30  Geoffrey  the  Chancellor 
is  the  collector  not  only  of  the  revenues  of  the  diocese, 
but  also  "  of  the  manors  which  he  has  in  custody."  This 
probably  means  the  forfeited  earldom,  as  otherwise  the 
Roll  must  be  imperfect  here,  for  there  is  no  other  return 
for  Hereford.  He  has  recently  been  appointed,  and  thus 
it  is  only  natural  that  he  should  now  revive  the  King's 
coinage  in  the  city,  and  to  do  so  he  introduces  that 
general  reviver  of  the  art  of  coinage,  the  itinerant  moneyer 
EDEIEVS  of  Bristol  and  Bedford  (see  under  those  mints). 
Types  262  (1128-1131)  and  255  (1131-1135)  therefore 
now  appear. 

To  explain  the  next  note  from  the  Roll  it  is  necessary 
to  again  revert  to  Domesday.  The  custom  that  the 
moneyers  of  Hereford  should  accompany  their  Sheriff  in 
his  expeditions  into  Wales  shows  that  they  held  their 
office  by  special  military  service.  This,  coupled  with 
their  sac  and  soc,  shows  them  to  have  been  freemen  of 
considerable  status.  Although  their  number  in  1128  had 
been  reduced  to  three,  they  would  still  be  liable  to  this 
service,  and  to  the  fine  of  £2  each  in  default.  On  type 
255  and  in  Stephen's  reign,  we  have  the  names  of  the 
three  moneyers  coining  here,  but  on  type  262,  which  in- 
cludes the  year  1128,  we  have  that  of  only  one.  The 
entry  therefore  in  the  1129-30  Roll  that  Gillopatric 
the  moneyer  accounts  for  £4  for  forfeit  of  the  previous 
year's  money  (?  monetary  service)  suggests  that  in  1127 
or  1128  there  had  been  an  expedition  into  Wales  which 
two  of  the  hereditary  moneyers  had  failed  to  attend. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY    I.     217 

This  is  the  more  probable  because  a  charter  to  Malvern 
Priory  proves  that  the  King  passed  through  Hereford  in 
1127.  These  absentees  would  be  fined  £2  each,  so  Gillo- 
patric  pays  £4  for  himself  and  the  other  moneyer,  who 
was,  perhaps,  a  near  relative  —  in  the  same  Roll,  Algar  and 
Spraoheling,  money  ers  of  London,  are  fined  jointly.  Or  it 
may  be  that  the  contracted  passage  "  Gillopatric  monetari 
redd  copot"  stands  for  "Gillo  7  Patric  monetarii,"  &c., 
thus  giving  us  the  names  of  the  two  missing  moneyers, 
viz.,  "William  and  Patric.  This  accounts  for  the  absence 
of  the  name  Gillopatric  in  either  form  upon  any  of  our 
coins,  and  for  the  fact  that  only  the  third  moneyer's  name, 
Edricus,  appears  on  the  current  type,  262,  for  both  the 
defaulters  would  naturally  lose  their  office.  Perhaps,  too, 
this  expedition  into  Pembrokeshire  was  the  indirect  cause 
of  the  deposit  of  the  Milford  Haven  hoard. 

During  the  following  reign  the  earldom  was  again 
revived  by  charter  in  favour  of  Milo  de  Gloucester,  from 
which  date,  1141  (Round),  coinage  here  once  more  becomes 
of  an  intermittent  character,  and  so  continues  until  the 
mint  is  finally  closed  in  the  time  of  Henry  III. 

COINS. 
.frEINEI  :  ON  :  hEEE  *  hENEIEVS  E         25i 

Engraved   Withy   and   Ryall,    ii.,    26.      The 
moneyer's   name   is    probably  misread   for 


*DEEIEVS  :  ON  :  riE  .  .  .frhENEIEVS  E  :      261' 

Watford  find.  The  moneyer's  name  is  EDEI- 
EVS  —  as  to  whom,  see  above  —  bat  the  E 
and  D  have  been  transposed.  Compare 
DED6AE  for  OED6AE,  of  London. 

*EDEIEVS  ON  hEEE  ^.riENEIEVS  :  25» 

Watford  find. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  *'    F 


218  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

4.EDRIEVS  ON  IiERE 

Simpson  Rostron  Sale,  1892  ;  Martin,  1859  ; 
and  probably  Tyssen,  1802. 

*EDRIEVS  :  ON  :  IxERE  *I\ENRIEVS  :  255 

J.  G.  Murdoch.  PI.  VII.  No.  8.  From 
Marsham,  1888,  and  Richardson,  1895,  £18 
5s.,  Sales.  Probably  the  above  specimen. 

•frEDRlE  :  ON  :  IxERE  .frhENRIEVS  255 

Victoria  Institute,  Worcester.  Lent  by  the 
Corporation  for  this  note. 

•frl-DRIE  .  .  ON  fiERE  255 

Battle  find,  and  Marsham,  1888,  Sale. 

.frEDPDE  :  ON  IxEREF  :  *hENRIEVS  -          255 

British  Museum.  From  the  Durrant,  1847, 
Sale. 

*ED  .  .  ]SE  :  ON  :  I\ER  .frhENRIEVS  255 

British  Museum. 

*  hERIEVS  :  ON  :  hE.     See  ^DERIEVS. 

•fr[P]^RIE  :  ON  :  hEREF :         4-fiENRIEVS  255 

Watford  find.  Two  specimens.  A  PIERIE, 
probably  the  same  moneyer,  coined  here  for 
Stephen. 

*  .  .ERIE  :  ON  :  TiEREF  ^hENRIEVS  255 

(Reference  missing.) 

Specimens.     Brown  Sale,  1869        .         .         .         .255 
Tyssen  Sale,  1802       .         .         .         .255 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY   I.      219 


HUNTINGDON. 

HUNTANDUN,  HUNTANDENE,  HuNTANTUN,  HuNTUNDONAJ  Domesday, 

HUNTEDUN  ;  Pipe  Roll,  HUNTEDONA  ;  Charters,  HUNTEDON,  &c. 

As  in  the  cases  of  Salisbury,  Hereford,  and  Derby,  Hunting- 
don does  not  now  occupy  the  exact  site  of  its  Roman  founda- 
tion, which  was  at  Godmanchester,  upon  the  opposite  bank 
of  the  river.  From  a  reference  to  this  town  as  Hunting- 
don-Port in  the  A.  8.  Chronicle's  transcript  of  the  foun- 
dation charter  of  Peterborough  Monastery,  A.D.  657,  its 
Roman  origin  seems  assured,  for  its  position  is  clearly  that 
of  one  of  the  portcB  or  stations  on  the  Ermine  Street.  The 
modern  Huntingdon,  however,  was  already  a  fortified 
burg  in  921,  for  the  same  authority  tells  us,  under  that 
year,  that  the  Danes  retired  thence  before  Edward  the 
Elder,  who  rebuilt  the  place  and  manned  it.  In  the 
following  century,  Huntingdon  and  Northampton  fell 
under  the  sway  of  Siward  the  Strong,  Earl  of  Northumbria. 
After  his  death  in  1055,  the  two  former  earldoms  were 
separated  from  the  Northern  fief  and  ultimately  descended 
in  the  direct  line  to  Waltheof,  who  held  them  at  the  date 
of  the  Conquest. 

Writing  about  the  year  1134,  Henry  of  Huntingdon 
describes  his  own  town  as  follows  : — 

"  The  river  Ouse  washes  three  fortified  places,  which  are  the 
chief  towns  of  the  counties  of  Bedford,  Buckingham,  and  Hun- 
tingdon. Huntingdon,  that  is,  'the  hill  of  hunters,'  stands  on 
the  site  of  Godmanchester,  once  a  famous  city,  but  now  only  a 
pleasant  village  on  both  sides  of  the  river.  It  is  remarkable 
for  the  two  castles  before  mentioned  [the  Saxon  or  Danish  burk, 
and  the  Norman  keep],  and  for  its  sunny  aspect,  as  well  as  for 
its  beauty,  besides  its  coutiguity  to  the  Fens,  and  the  abundance 
of  wild  fowl  and  animals  of  the  chase."  (Forester.) 


220  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1067.  William  I  returned  to  Normandy  in  Lent  and  took 
with  him,  no  doubt  as  hostages,  "Child  Edgar,  and 
Edwin  the  Earl  and  Morcar  the  Earl,  and  Waltheof, 
the  Earl,  and  many  other  good  men  of  England." 
(Sax.  Chron.) 

1068.  On  his  return  the  King  erected  a  castle  at  Hunt- 
ingdon, and  garrisoned  it.     (Orderic.) 

1069.  Waltheof  revolts  in  the  North,  and  is  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Danes  against  the  garrison  of  York. 
(Orderic.) 

1070.  He  is  reconciled  to  the  Conqueror,  who  gives  him 
his  niece  Judith  in  marriage,  and  "  confers  "  [?  con- 
firms] the  earldom  of  Northampton   ["  and  Hunting- 
don," in  a  second  passage]  on   Waltheof,  son  of  Earl 
Siward,  the  most  powerful  of  the  English  nobility." 
(Orderic.) 

1075.  Waltheof  is  implicated   in    Ralph    de   Guarder's 
rebellion,  and  pleads  for  pardon  before  the  King  in 
Normandy.     (Sax.  Chron.) 

1076.  May  31st. — On  the  King's  return  he  is  convicted 
"  upon  the  testimony  of  his  wife  Judith,"  and  be- 
headed at  Winchester.     (Orderic.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  Burg  of  Huntingdon 
there  were  in  the  Confessor's  time,  and  are  now 
(altogether),  256  burgesses  paying  customs  and  taxes 
to  the  King,  and  112  houses  laid  waste.  Of  these 
most  seem  to  have  been  demolished  before  the  time 
of  the  Confessor,  and  therefore,  probably,  by  the 
Danes  in  921.  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  formerly  had  a 
residence,  and  there  were  twenty  other  houses  on  the 
site  of  the  castle,  but  now  demolished.  The  Countess 
Judith  has  eighteen  homesteads,  with  sac  and  soc  and 
tol  and  team,  and  a  manor-house  (mansionem  cum 
domo)  free  from  customs,  which  formerly  Earl  Siward 
had.  The  burg  was  formerly  rated  for  a  fourth  part 
of  the  Hurstingstone  hundred,  but  not  "  since  King 
William  laid  the  tax  of  the  mint  on  the  burg." 
£10  was  paid  in  the  Confessor's  time  for  land  tax,  of 
which  the  Earl  had  the  third  part,  and  as  Jirma, 
£20  to  the  King,  and  £10,  either  more  or  less  as  he 
was  able  to  levy  it,  to  the  Earl.  The  mill  paid  40s. 
to  the  King  and  20s.  to  the  Earl.  "  In  this  burg 
there  were  four  moneyers  paying  40s.  between  the 
King  and  Earl,  but  now  they  are  not."  In  the  tim« 
of  the  Confessor  and  now  the  burg  paid  £30. 


\ 


Vwn  Chron<  S&rlV  fa 


TY  P  E    I 

(HAWKINS   25 1 ) 


l/i 


TYPE     II 
HAWKINS    25 


TYPE    III 

(HAWKINS    253) 


TYPE    IV 
(HAW  KINS     252 


TYPE     V 
(HAWK  INS     256) 


COINS.  OF  HENRY  I. 


Mun.  CAw.Sct:  IV.  M.  I  Pi  IV 


TYPE     VII 
^HAWKINS     267) 


TYPE    VIII 
(HAWKINS      266 


TYPE    IX 

(HAWKINS    264) 


COINS  OF  HENRY  I. 


Nim  Chron  Ser.W  VolJ.Pl.  V. 


T  Y  p  E  x 

(HAWKINS     263) 


TYPE    XI 
HAWKINS   IV) 


COINS    OF  HENRY  I. 


ChronSerlVVolLPL 


TYPE    XII 
(HAWKINS       258) 


TYPE    XIII 
'HAWKINS     265) 


COINS    OF  HENRY   I 


Mint,.  C 


Vff 


TYPE    XIII 
(HAWKINS     265] 
(Cont4) 


TYPE    XIV 
(HAWKINS    262) 


TYPE    XV 

(HAWKINS    255) 


COINS  OF  HENRY   I 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       221 

1086-7.  "  Waltheof  had  three  daughters  by  his  wife,  the 
daughter  of  the  Countess  of  Albernarle.  .  .  .  Simon 
de  St.  Liz  married  the  eldest,  and  received  the  County 
of  Huntingdon  with  her  ;  and  by  her  he  had  one  son, 
called  Simon."  (Robert  de  Monte.)  The  date  is 
deduced  from  the  fact  that  Earl  Simon  was  evidently 
not  married  when  Domesday  was  compiled,  and  yet  the 
Register  of  St.  Andrew's  Priory  at  Northampton  tells 
us  that  William  I  gave  Maud  in  marriage  to  Simon  de 
St.  Liz,  together  with  the  whole  Honour  of  Hunting- 
don. Orderic  adds  that  "  he  held  the  two  Counties 
of  Northampton  and  Huntingdon  as  Earl  in  her  right." 

1100.  Earl  Simon  witnesses  Henry's  Coronation  charter. 

1101.  Witnesses  the  Bath,  Norwich,  and  other  charters 
in  England. 

1102-3.  Joins  the  Crusades  and  is  absent  for  about  five 
years. 

1108-9.  Returns  and  witnesses  the  Lenton  and  Ely 
charters  at  Nottingham. 

1109.  Visits  Normandy  and  witnesses  the  Longueville 
charter  at  Rouen. 

1109.     His  death,  late  in  the  year. 

1113.  The  King  gives  Maud,  the  Earl's  widow,  in  mar- 
riage to  David,  Earl  of  Cumbria  (the  south-western 
division  of  Scotland),  who,  in  her  right,  succeeds  Earl 
Simon  as  Earl  of  Northampton  and  Huntingdon. 
From  the  date  of  the  marriage  of  his  sister  to  King 
Henry,  Prince  David  had  resided  at  the  English 
Court,  but,  after  the  death  of  his  brother  Edgar, 
King  of  Scotland,  in  1107,  he  returned  to  that  country 
as  heir  presumptive  to  the  Crown,  and,  from  the  date 
of  his  own  marriage,  at  least,  seems  to  have  resided 
there. 

1121.  January.  Attends  Henry's  marriage  at  Windsor. 
Witnesses  a  charter  to  Westminster  on  that  occasion 
as  "  Earl  David."  (Round.) 

1124.  April  24.  Succeeds  to  the  Crown  of  Scotland. 
(Melrose.) 

1127.  January  1.  At  London,  swears  fealty  to  the  Em- 
press Matilda  as  successor  to  the  English  throne. 
(Melrose.) 

1129-30.  "King  David  was  ably  applying  himself  to  a 
cause  in  King  Henry's  Court,  and  carefully  examining 
a  charge  of  treason  of  which,  they  say,  Geoffrey  de 
Clinton  had  been  guilty."  (Orderic.) 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  <*    G 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Pipe  Roll  notes. — Geoffrey  de  Clinton  is  the  King's 
Justiciary  in  Huntingdonshire,  and  so  King  David's 
inquiry  into  "  the  false  "  charge  of  treason  would  be 
in  his  comital  qualification  as  Earl  of  the  county. 
The  various  expenses  of  escorting  the  King  of  Scot- 
laud  to  the  English  court  and  of  his  return  to  Scotland 
are  entered  under  several  counties,  showing  that  he 
returned  before  September  29th,  1130.  The  Burg  of 
Huntingdon  pays  £8  in  auxilium,  and  the  cloth 
weavers  40s.  for  their  guild. 

1131.     Death  of  Maud,  Waltheof's  daughter  and  Queen  of 
Scotland. 


The  mint  of  Huntingdon  was  doubtless  established  by 
Eadwig,  as  his  coins  are  the  earliest  as  yet  noticed,  which 
bear  its  name.  This  was  within  some  five-and-thirty 
years  after  Edward  the  Elder  had  "  rebuilt  the  place  and 
manned  it."  Coinage  was  continued  under  all  Eadwig's 
Saxon  successors  and  in  the  time  of  the  Confessor  there 
were  three  moneyers  in  office. 

The  record  in  Domesday,  "  in  this  burg  there  were 
three  moneyers  paying  40s.  between  the  King  and  Earl, 
but  now  they  are  not,"  shows  that  the  Saxon  Earl  formerly 
had  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  mint.  He  held  the  mint 
therefore  by  the  same  tenure  as  he  held  the  burg,  and  both 
were  under  his  direct  control. 

Immediately  after  the  Conquest  Waltheof  seems  to 
have  submitted  to  William,  as,  in  the  Lent  following,  he 
accompanied  the  King  to  Normandy.  In  1069  he  joined 
the  Northern  insurrection  and  in  person  kept  the  gate  at 
York  against  the  Norman  attack.  It  speaks  well  for 
King  William's  generosity  that,  in  the  following  year,  he 
should  not  only  restore  Waltheof  to  favour,  but  also  give 
him  his  niece  Judith  in  marriage  and  regrant  to  him  his 
former  earldom  of  Huntingdon  and  Northampton.  But 
in  1075  the  Earl  was  implicated  in  the  East  Anglian 


JL    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.      223 

conspiracy,  and  after  considerable  hesitation  on  the  King's 
part  was  executed  at  Winchester,  in  May,  1076.  The 
joint  earldom  thus  became  extinct  because  of  the  for- 
feiture for  treason,  but,  in  any  case,  it  would  have  been 
dormant,  as  Waltheof  only  left  issue  three  daughters. 
The  mint  therefore  also  fell  into  abeyance  ;  but  it  was  a 
quasi  Royal  mint,  being  as  to  two-thirds  of  its  revenue 
the  prerogative  of  the  Crown,  and  so,  as  in  the  exactly 
parallel  instance  of  Hereford,  it  was  presently  revived. 

There  is  no  clearer  evidence  in  support  of  the  theory 
running  through  this  volume  than  the  case  of  Huntingdon. 
The  earldom  became  extinct  in  1076  ;  Domesday  tells  us 
that  in  1086  the  three  money ers  who  used  to  pay  40s. 
between  the  King  and  Earl  "  are  not,"  and  yet  at  that  very 
time  we  have  the  evidence  of  the  Huntingdon  coins  to 
show  us  that  the  mint  was  in  full  operation.  The  expla- 
nation is  contained  in  the  previous  sentence,  "  the  burg 
was  formerly  rated  for  a  fourth  part  of  the  Hurstingstone 
hundred,  but  not  since  King  William  laid  the  tax  of  the 
mint  on  the  burg."  Therefore,  as  in  the  case  of  Dor- 
chester, the  King  had  farmed  the  mint  to  the  burgesses 
in  the  firma  of  their  burg.  But  in  this  instance  we  have 
direct  evidence  that  he  had  done  so,  whereas  at  Dorchester 
and  several  other  places  we  can  only  infer  it.  Surely  this 
incidental  reference  to  the  tax  of  the  Huntingdon  mint 
should,  once  for  all,  clench  the  fact  that  only  those 
moneyers  are  mentioned  in  Domesday  from  whom  the 
King  drew,  in  whole  or  in  part,  a  direct  revenue — hence 
the  apparent  contradiction  that  although  the  mint  is 
referred  to  as  being  in  the  hands  of  the  burgesses,  the 
moneyers,  as  royal  moneyers,  no  longer  exist. 

In  1086  Maud,  the  eldest  daughter  of  Waltheof,  would 
probably  be  about  fifteen  years  of  age  and,  in  accordance 


224  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

with  the  Norman  custom  of  early  marriages,  the  Con- 
queror bestowed  her  upon  one  of  his  Senlac  followers, 
Simon  de  St.  Liz,  "  together  with  the  whole  Honour  of 
Huntingdon."  As  in  the  later,  but  very  similar  instance, 
of  Gloucester,  this  must  have  been  followed  by  a  grant  of 
the  earldom  of  Northampton  and  Huntingdon,  for  as  early 
as  in  1090  St.  Liz  witnesses  the  Bath  charter  as 
"  Symon  Comes."  Although  of  two  counties  the  earldom 
seems  to  have  been  a  single  creation  and  the  title  of 
Northampton  to  have  been  then  usually  preferred.  This 
revival  of  the  earldom  would  revoke  the  transfer  of  the 
mint  to  the  burg  and  restore  it  to  its  former  status  under 
the  earl.  No  doubt  its  firma  also  was  again  similarly 
divided  between  the  King  and  Earl,  and  its  output  would 
thus,  once  more,  become  intermittent  according  to  Earl 
Simon's  presence  in,  or  absence  from,  England. 

In  1100  Earl  Simon  was  in  England  and  witnessed 
Henry's  Coronation  charter,  so  there  is  no  reason  why 
type  251  should  not  be  in  evidence  from  this  mint,  but  as 
yet  it  seems  to  be  missing.  He  was  at  Windsor  in 
September  1101,  as  appears  by  the  Norwich  and  Bath 
charters,  and  remained  in  England  until  some  date  in 
1102  or  1103,  when  he  joined  the  Crusades.  Hence  type 
254  (1102-1104)  now  appears  of  the  Huntingdon  mint. 
He  remained  abroad  until  late  in  1107  or  early  in  1108, 
when  he  returned  and  granted  the  foundation  charter  of 
St.  Andrew's  Priory,  Northampton,  and  witnessed  that  of 
Lenton  Priory.  In  the  following  year  his  name  appears 
in  the  Ely  charter  granted  at  Henry's  council  at  Notting- 
ham, October  16th,  1109  ;  but  immediately  afterwards  he 
must  have  crossed  the  Channel,  for  he  died  at  Charite*- 
sur-Loire  in  the  same  year.  Thus  he  was  only  in 
England  for  a  few  months  and  consequently  we  appear 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       22-> 

to  have  no  coins  issued  by  his  authority  upon  this  occa- 
sion.    He  left  one  son,  Simon  II,  then  a  minor. 

From  1109  to  1113  the  earldom  was  in  abeyance  and 
therefore  the  mint  could  not  be  in  operation.  In  or  about 
the  latter  year  the  King  gave  Maud  of  Huntingdon, 
Earl  Simon's  widow,  to  David,  Prince  of  Cumbria.  From 
the  date  of  the  marriage  of  his  sister  Matilda  to  King 
Henry  in  1100,  David  had  been  resident  at  the  English 
Court,  but  by  the  will  of  his  elder  brother  Edgar,  King  of 
Scotland,  he  succeeded  in  1107  to  the  south-western 
division  of  that  kingdom,  which  he  ruled  almost  as  an  in- 
dependent Prince.  Oddly  enough  the  last  English  charter 
which  he  seems  to  have  witnessed  while  still  domiciled 
in  England,  is  that  of  St.  Andrew's  Priory,  Northampton, 
granted  by  his  future  wife  and  Earl  Simon  in  1107-08. 
He  then  returned  to  Scotland,  and  at  the  date  of  his 
.marriage  in  1113  was  resident  near  Glasgow.  Orderic 
tells  us  that  upon  his  marriage  he  possessed  the  two 
Counties  of  Northampton  and  Huntingdon  in  right  of 
his  wife,  and  from  that  date  to  the  time  of  his  accession  to 
the  Scottish  crown  we  almost  invariably  find  him  described 
in  charters  as  "  Earl  David."  The  question  is,  was  he 
created  Earl  of  Northampton  and  Huntingdon  ?  At  this 
time  Maud's  son  by  her  first  marriage  must  have  been 
approaching  manhood,  and  to  grant  David  the  earldom 
would  have  been  to  divert  it  entirely  from  him.  It  is 
therefore  more  probable  that  it  was  now  divided,  and  that 
Henry  created  David  Earl  of  Huntingdon  only,  but  gave 
him  the  custody  of  the  earldom  of  Northampton  in  right 
of  his  wife.  This  is  supported  by  the  facts  that  one  of 
Henry's  charters  is  addressed  to  him  as  "  Earl  of  Hun- 
tingdon," and  in  later  times,  although  always  the  subject 
of  a  family  feud,  the  descendants  of  David  claimed  the 


226  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

earldom  of  Huntingdon,  whilst  that  of  Northampton 
devolved  upon  the  family  of  St.  Liz.  From  the  time  of 
his  marriage  to  the  year  1120  David  remained  in  Scotland, 
where,  amongst  others,  his  name  appears  in  the  Selkirk 
charter  of  1113,  the  Glasgow  episcopal  appointment  of 
1115,  the  Jedburgh  charter  of  1118,  and  the  Glasgow 
inquisition  edict  of  1120.  Hence  coinage  at  Huntingdon 
was  impossible.  In  January,  1121,  we  find  his  name  as 
a  witness  to  two  charters  to  Westminster  granted  at 
Windsor.  As  Mr.  Round  points  out,  this  was  upon  the 
occasion  of  his  brother-in-law  King  Henry's  second 
marriage,  which  it  is  suggested,  he  came  over  specially  to 
attend  and  stayed  but  a  few  days  in  England.  If  a 
charter  of  Hugh  de  la  Yal  to  Pontefract  Prior}'  may  be 
relied  upon  —  although  its  witnesses  are  out  of  the 
customary  order — he  paid  another  visit  to  Henry  in 
December,  1122,  but  only  met  him  at  York.  In  April,, 
1124,  he  succeeded  his  brother  Alexander  on  the  throne 
of  Scotland,  and  remained  in  that  country  until  December, 
1126,  when  he  again  made  a  special  journey  to  the 
English  Court,  this  time  to  pay  homage  for  his  English 
possessions  upon  his  accession  and  to  swear  fealty  at 
London  to  the  Empress  Matilda,  as  heiress  presumptive  to 
the  Crown.  As,  up  to  this  date,  we  only  know  of  these 
three  visits,  of  the  first  and  second  by  the  appearance  of 
his  name  on  the  charters,  and  of  the  third  by  the  record 
of  his  fealty,  we  may  assume  that  they  were  merely  fleeting 
appearances,  for  had  so  important  a  personage  as  a  Prince, 
and  later  a  King  of  Scotland,  remained  any  length  of  time 
in  this  country,  his  presence  would  have  been  recorded  over 
and  over  again;  as,  indeed,  it  was,  very  soon  afterwards.  It 
would  have  been  impracticable  therefore  for  David  to  have 
obtained  the  necessary  dies  and  instituted  a  coinage  at 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      227 

Huntingdon  upon  any  one  of  these  occasions.  But  in 
1129-30  David  came  over  to  England  and  spent  a  whole 
year  here.  It  was  as  Earl  of  Huntingdon  that  he  held 
the  enquiry  touching  the  alleged  treason  of  Geoffrey  de 
Clinton,  the  King's  justiciary  for  that  county,  and  his 
object  in  remaining  so  long  a  time  was  no  doubt  the 
general  administration  of  his  earldom.  Now,  and  now 
only,  during  the  latter  half  of  the  reign  of  Henry  I  are 
the  privileges  of  the  mint  exercised  at  Huntingdon,  and 
type  262  (1128-1131)  is  in  evidence. 

King  David  did  not  again  set  foot  in  England  during 
this  reign,  and  so  the  mint  remained  closed.  It  was  re- 
opened in  Stephen's  time,  probably  by  David's  son  Prince 
Henry,  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  and  ceased  to  exist  coinci- 
dently  with  his  death. 

COINS. 

•frDEELIG  :  ON  :  fxVNTFO  :          .  .  NEIEVS  EE       262 
Watford  find. 

ADEEMS  :  ON  I\V  .  .  F  .  :          *riENEIEVS  E      262 
P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 

•frSEFPINE  ON  HVT  .frHENEI  EIEX     254 

Hun  terian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  PL  II, 
No.  9.  Engraved,  Ruding,  Sup.  i.,  4.  A 
pellet  instead  of  the  annulet  in  the  centre  of 
the  reverse  cross.  This  moneyer — Sefwine 
—had  coined  here  in  the  previous  reign. 

On  page  96  this  mint  is  given   under  type  255 
instead  of  under  254. 


228  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


IPSWICH  (SUFFOLK). 

GIPESWIC,    GYPESWICH  ;    Domesday,    GEPESWIZ  ;    Pipe    Roll, 
GEPESWIC. 

Excavations  at  Ipswich  have  disclosed  Roman  remains, 
but  it  is  remarkable  that  a  town,  which  in  the  eleventh 
century  contained  one  of  the  largest  populations  in 
England,  should  figure  so  rarely  in  our  early  records. 
Its  name,  however,  appears  in  the  will  of  Theodred, 
Bishop  of  Elmham,  circa  960,  and  contemporaneously 
upon  our  coins  of  Edgar. 

The  Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us  that,  in  991,  Ipswich  was 
ravaged,  and  in  1010  the  Danes  again  invaded  the  district. 

1069.  The  Danes  disembark  at  Ipswich  and  commence 
raiding  the  neighbourhood,  but  the  inhabitants  slay 
thirty  of  them  and  put  the  rest  to  flight. 

1075.  The  conspiracy  and  fall  of  Ralph  de  Gruader,  Earl 
of  East  Anglia  (see  pages  211,  215,  220,  212,  326-27). 
He  is  driven  into  exile,  and  subsequently  dies  in  the 
first  Crusade.  His  estates,  which  included  Ipswich, 
were  confiscated. 

1082.  Ipswich  seems  now  to  have  been  granted  to  Roger 
Bigod  as  the  King's  Castellan. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — Roger  Bigod  has  the  custody  of 
half  the  Hundred  and  of  the  burg  of  Ipswich  "  in 
wanu  Regis."  In  the  time  of  the  Confessor,  Queen 
Edith  held  two  parts  of  it,  and  Earl  Gurth  (Harold's 
brother)  the  third  part.  There  were  then  588  bur- 
gesses in  the  burg  paying  customs  to  the  King.  They 
bad  40  acres  of  land;  and  paid  &Jirma  of  <£15  and  six 
sextaries  of  honey,  and  also  4s.  in  customs  of  honey 
and  8s.  to  the  prebendaries.  The  churches  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  St.  Mary,  St.  Augustine,  St.  Michael, 
St.  Botolph,  and  St.  Lawrence  are  mentioned. 

Now  there  are  110  burgesses  who  pay  customs,  and 
100  impoverished  burge>ses  who  are  only  able  to  pay 
one  penny  as  tax  to  the  King  for  their  civil  rights.  828 
houses  are  waste  in  the  burg,  which  in  the  time  of 
King  Edward  paid  scot  to  the  King's  taxes.  Roger 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      229 

the  Sheriff  let  the  whole  at  &firma  of  £40  [payable] 
at  the  feast  of  St.  Michael.  Afterwards  he  was  not 
able  to  maintain  the  assessment,  and  from  this  he 
allowed  60s.  ;  now  it  returns  £37. 

"And  the  moneyers  paid  in  the  time  of  King  Edward 
£4  per  annum  for  the  mint.  Now  they  ought  to  pay 
£20,  but  in  the  course  of  four  years  they  have  only  paid 
£27.  And  the  Earl  always  has  the  third  part." 

In  a  later  passage  it  is  mentioned  that  Earl  Alan  of 
Brittany  held  the  other  half  of  the  Hundred  of  Ips- 
wich and  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  burg,  in  all 
but  £15. 

1100.  Roger  Bigod  witnesses  Henry  I's  Coronation 
charter  (Wendover),  and  is  appointed  upon  his 
Council.  (Orderic.) 

1100-7.     Roger  Bigod  witnesses  many  English  charters. 

1107.  September  15th.  Dies,  and  is  buried  in  the  Priory 
at  Thetford.  (Orderic.)  He  left  two  sons,  William 
and  Hugh. 

1113.  William  Bigod,  in  Normandy,  witnesses  the  charter 
of  St.  Evroul.  (Orderic.) 

1119.  Probable    date    of  William   Bigod's   confirmation 
charter  to  Thetford  Priory  and  of  his  attestation  of 
the  Romsey  charter. 

1120.  November  25th.     William  Bigod  perishes  in  the 
"White  Ship." 

1122.  December.    Hugh   Bigod  witnesses  Hugh   de  la 
Val's  charter  to  Pontefract. 

1123.  Witnesses  the  Plympton  charter  at  Henry's  Court. 
1125.     In  Normandy,  witnesses  the  Foundation  charter 

of  Reading  Abbey. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll   notes. — The  burg  pays  £7  auxilium. 
William  Bigod,  at  the  time  of  his  death,  owed  £100  on 
account  of  his  fees,  which  his  brother  [Hugh]  will  pay 
for  him,  if  the  King  should  wish.    Hugh  Bigod  receives 
£10  from  the  Sheriff's  receipts  for  the  County  of  Nor- 
folk and  £10  similarly  from  that  of  Suffolk. 

1131.  Hugh  Bigod  attends  the  September   Council    at 
Northampton  and  witnesses  the  charters  to  Salisbury 
and  Dover. 

1185.  Is  present  at  Henry's  death  at  Lyons.  (Ealph  d* 
Diceto.) 

It  was  but  natural  that  King  Edgar,  who  had  been 
brought  up  from   his   boyhood   in   East  Anglia,  should 

VOL.    I.     FOURTH    SERIES.  H  H 


230  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

encourage  and  benefit  the  towns  of  the  eastern  division 
of  England.  Hence  the  mints  of  Ipswich,  Norwich, 
Thetford,  St.  Edmundsbury,  and  Peterborough  (Stamford), 
owe  their  origin  to  him.  The  mint  of  Lincoln  was  revived 
by  him,  and  that  of  Huntingdon  established,  whilst  he 
reigned  as  sub-king  of  East  Anglia  in  the  lifetime  of 
his  brother  E  ad  wig. 

Thus  Ipswich  was  originally  a  royal  mint  and  so 
remained  throughout  the  succeeding  Saxon  reigns.  Its 
output  was  prolific  and  all  of  these  reigns  are  repre- 
sented upon  its  coinage.  Our  Ipswich  coins  of  the 
Confessor  suggest  that  there  were  then  four  moneyers,  and 
therefore  the  annual  fees  of  £4,  mentioned  in  Domesday, 
represented  the  usual  £1  per  head.  Although  still  a 
royal  mint,  it  would  be  under  the  immediate  jurisdiction 
of  Earl  Gurth  as  grantee  of  the  tertius  denarius  of  the 
burg. 

The  Conquest  fell  heavily  upon  Ipswich.  Its  firma 
was  practically  doubled  and  the  annual  fees  of  its  mint 
were  raised  from  £4  to  £20.  William  created  Ralph  de 
Guader  Earl  of  East  Anglia,  and  as  such  he  would  receive 
the  tertius  denarius  of  the  burg  and  mint.  But  in  1075, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  marriage  with  the  sister  of  Roger, 
Earl  of  Hereford, 

41  There  was  that  bride  ale, 
The  source  of  man's  bale," 

as  the  Saxon  Chronicle  quaintly  explains  a  con- 
spiracy, so  purposeless  and  foolhardy  as  to  be  otherwise 
incredible,  in  which  the  two  Earls  and  Waltheof  plotted 
the  overthrow  of  King  William. 

The  immediate  result  of  this  conspiracy — if,  indeed,  it 
was  anything  more  than  a  few  futile  boasts  at  the  feast 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      231 

welcomed  with  avidity  as  an  excuse  for  the  extinction  of 
Waltheof — was  an  expedition  of  William's  forces  into 
Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  and  the  outlawry  of  the  Earl. 
Then,  no  doubt,  it  was  that  the  328  houses  referred  to 
in  Domesday  were  laid  "'  waste  "  and  the  town  so  im- 
poverished that  when,  eleven  years  later,  the  mint  ought 
to  have  contributed  a  rent  amounting  to  £80  in  the 
preceding  four  years,  it  had  only  paid  £27. 

The  Earldom  of  East  Anglia  was  confiscated  and  its 
territory  divided  by  King  William  amongst  his  adherents. 
Roger  Bigod  seems  to  have  received  the  lion's  share,  for 
in  Suffolk  alone  he  was  granted  117  lordships  or  manors. 
The  tertius  denarius  of  the  burg  of  Ipswich,  together 
with  that  of  the  two  adjoining  Hundreds,  was  given  to 
Alan,  Earl  of  Brittany,  but  Roger  Bigod  had  the  custody 
of  the  burg  in  manu  Regis.  This  position  is  singular,  and 
must  be  explained  by  the  necessarily  "  absentee  "  charac- 
ter of  the  lordship  of  an  Earl — or  Duke  as  he  was  some- 
times called — of  Brittany.  Roger,  as  King's  castellan, 
held  the  town,  but  Earl  Alan  received  its  tertius  denarius 
and  that  of  the  mint  also.  The  singularity  rests  in  the 
fact  that  the  Bigod  was  castellan  for  the  King  and  not, 
as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  Milo  of  Gloucester  in  later 
times,  for  the  Earl.  The  effect  of  this  was  that  the  town 
for  all  practical  purposes  was  the  lordship  of  Roger  Bigod 
and  he  was  solely  responsible  to  the  King  for  its  custody. 
The  mint,  therefore,  must  have  been  under  his  immediate 
jurisdiction,  and  to  this  extent  Ipswich  was  an  exception 
to  the  general  rule  that  the  privileges  of  a  mint  followed 
its  tertius  denarius,  for  the  claims  of  Earl  Alan  seem  to 
have  been  limited  to  a  monetary  payment,  whereas  those 
of  Roger  Bigod  comprised  the  whole  privileges  of  a  terri- 
torial lord.  Mr.  Round,  in  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  points 


232  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

out   that   Conan,  the   then    Earl    of    Brittany,   received 
£9  10s.  as  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  county  at  the  date 
of  the  1156  Pipe  Roll,  and  that  upon  his  death,  in  1171, 
Robert  de   Torigny  records   that  Henry  II  succeeded  to 
iota  Britannia  et  comitatus  de  Gippewis.     It  will,  however, 
be  noticed  that  the  £15  has  been  reduced  to  £9  10s.,  and 
the  difference  of    £5   10s.  may,  not  improbably,  repre- 
sent the  nominal  third  penny  from  the   mint.     In  the 
meantime  Hugh  Bigod  had  been  created  Earl  of  Norfolk 
and  Suffolk  by  King  Stephen,  and  so,  if  this  outstanding 
third  penny  of  the  Earldom  of  Ipswich   had  then  been 
anything  more  than  a  mere  rent  charge,  we  should  have 
had  two  Earls  qualified  from  the  same  fees,  or,  as  was  not 
the  case,  an  exception  of  the  third  penny  of  the  pleas  of 
"  the  County  of  Ipswich  "  from  the  grant  to  Earl  Bigod. 
Other  observations  are  that  there  is  no  such  payment 
in  the  1130  Roll,  and  its  revival  in  1156  is  in  the  year 
previous  to  that  in  which  Henry  II  compelled  Earl  Bigod 
to  surrender  his  castles  (Westminster).     These,  coupled 
with  the  initial  text  of  our  subject,  that  when  the  Duke 
(Henry  II)  came  over  he  rendered  null    the  money  of 
most  of  the  barons  (Hoveden),  point  to  the  explanation 
that,   so  long  as   Roger  Bigod    was  merely  the  King's 
castellan  of  Ipswich,  the  third  penny  of  the  mint  and 
of  the   two   Hundreds    was    paid    to    Earl    Alan.     But 
whereas,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Bigod's  influence  always 
remained   in   the   ascendant   scale,    on   the    other,    Earl 
Alan's   connexion    with   England   was   being   gradually 
severed,    until   in  the  early  years  of  Henry    I    he  was 
actually   in   arms  for   William  Clito  against  the  King. 
The  time  therefore  arrived,  probably  during  the  reign  of 
Rufus,  when  the  Bigod  was  strong  enough  to  stop  the 
payment  of  the  entire  tertius  denarius  of  burg,  mint,  and 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       233 

Hundreds.  But  on  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Plan- 
tagenet  it  was  Henry  IFs  policy  to  cripple  the  power  of 
the  great  Earl  of  East  Anglia  of  Stephen's  creation,  and 
so  he  reduced  his  castles  and  suppressed  his  mint  so  far 
as  its  grantee's  character  was  concerned,  but  revived  the 
old  third  penny  of  the  Comitatus  of  Ipswich,  less  the 
fees  from  its  mint,  in  favour  of  the  Earl  of  Brittany. 
Thus  the  lordship  of  Ipswich,  and  therefore  of  the  Ipswich 
mint,  remained  throughout  in  the  hands  of  the  Bigods, 
similarly  as  we  have  seen  Eudo  Dapifer,  first  as  castellan 
but  later  as  grantee,  held  the  burg  and  mint  of  Colchester 
(pp.  162-164:). 

Such  was  the  position  when  Henry  I  ascended  the 
throne  in  1100.  Roger  Bigod  was  in  England  and 
witnessed  the  coronation  charter,  and  between  that  date 
and  the  year  1107,  his  name  appears  upon  many  English 
charters.  Hence  types  251  (1100-1102),  253  (1104-1J06), 
and  252  (1106-1108),  are  existent  of  the  Ipswich  mint. 
It  will,  however,  be  noticed  that  type  254  for  the  years 
1102-1104  (Michaelmas)  is  missing,  and,  curiously  enough, 
now  that  the  Tewkesbury  grant  is  believed  to  be  spurious, 
these  are  the  only  two  years  to  which  it  is  difficult  to 
assign  any  charter  bearing  his  name,  for  that  to  Thetford 
Priory  was  apparently  given  in  December,  1104.  Never- 
theless, it  is  more  probable  that  the  types  may  be  incom- 
plete than  that  the  man  who  is  credited  with  having 
fought  at  Hastings  should  be  abroad  in  his  old  age. 

We  may  assume  that  he  was  twice  married,  but  left  no 
male  issue  by  his  first  wife,  for  Adeliza,  his  widow,  sur- 
vived him  for  many  years,  and  is  mentioned  in  the  1130 
Pipe  Roll.  By  her  he  left  two  sons,  William  and  Hugh,  and 
a  daughter,  Matilda,  who  subsequently  became  the  wife 
of  William  de  Albini.  William  and  Hugh  must  have 


234  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

been  in  early  infancy  at  the  time  of  their  father's  death, 
for  William  was  "a  youth"  when  he  perished  in  1120, 
and  Hugh  survived  his  father  for  more  than  seventy 
years. 

The  unfortunate  history  of  William  Bigod,  the  elder 
of  the  brothers,  is  almost  identical  with  that  of  Richard, 
the  young  heir  to  the  Earldom  of  Chester.  They  seem 
to  have  been  of  about  the  same  age — though  Richard 
would  be  a  little  the  elder — and  no  doubt  they  were 
brought  up  at  the  King's  court  as  companions  to  their 
contemporary,  the  young  Prince  William.  They  both 
witness  the  St.  Evroul  charter  in  Normandy  in  1113, 
and  return  to  England  together,  presumably  to  take 
seizin  of  their  estates,  in  1119,  for  on  that  occasion  they 
grant  confirmation  charters  in  England,  the  one  to  St. 
Werburg's  at  Chester,  the  other  to  Thetford  Priory. 
The  date  of  the  latter  charter  could  not  be  earlier  than 
the  death  of  Queen  Matilda,  May  1st,  1118,  nor  later 
than  that  of  Herbert,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  July  22,  1119. 
The  parallel  is  continued,  for  they  return  to  Normandy,  and 
on  the  25th  of  November,  1120,  whilst  once  more  attempt- 
ing the  crossing  of  the  Channel,  they,  together  with  their 
colleague,  William  the  Etheling,  perish  in  the  White  Ship. 
The  entry  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll,  that  "William  Bigod, 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  owed  £100  on  account  of  his 
[succession]  fees,  which  his  brother  [Hugh]  will  pay  for 
him,  if  the  King  should  wish,"  raises  a  doubt  whether 
his  succession  was  ever  completed  by  the  King's  con- 
firmation. For  if  Hugh  Bigod  had  succeeded  his  brother 
there  seems  no  reason  why  the  sheriff  should  have  referred 
the  matter  to  the  King,  for  Hugh  Bigod  could  only  have 
taken  the  estates  with  their  liability ;  but  if  there  was  a 
doubt  whether  he  did  not  succeed  as  heir  to  his  father 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      235 

because  his  brother  died  before  acquiring  absolute  pos- 
session, the  meaning  of  the  paragraph  is  at  least  clearer. 
Therefore,  between  the  death  of  Roger  Bigod  in  1107, 
and  that  of  William  Bigod  in  1120,  there  was  no 
grantee  in  possession  of  the  burg  of  Ipswich  or  of  its 
mint,  and  so  no  coins  representing  that  interval  are 
extant  of  it. 

At  the  date  of  his  brother's  death  Hugh  Bigod  was 
probably  but  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  of  age,  for  despite 
the  prominent  position  in  which  that  event  suddenly 
placed  him,  as  heir  to  the  vast  estates  of  the  Bigod,  his 
name  does  not  appear  in  any  charter  until  two  years 
later.  He  was  a  ward  of  the  King,  and  as  such  would 
be  attached  to  the  court,  and  yet  he  did  not  witness  any 
of  the  charters  granted  in  January,  1121,  upon  the  occa- 
sion of  the  King's  second  marriage.  We  know  from  the 
instances  of  Robert,  the  King's  natural  son,  Richard, 
afterwards  Earl  of  Chester,  and,  no  doubt,  of  William 
Bigod,  that  youths  of  eighteen  years  of  age  were  so 
admitted  as  witnesses.  Assuming,  therefore,  that  he 
did  not  attain  that  age  until  late  in  the  year  1122,  we 
have  still  the  remarkable  instance  in  1175  of  an  Earl 
71  years  of  age  rising  in  rebellion  (Wendover),  and  in 
his  74th  year  recorded  as  joining  the  Crusades ! 

It  may  be  new  to  call  attention  to  Hugh  Bigod's  name 
as  a  witness  to  a  charter  of  1122,  but  that  of  Hugh  de 
la  Val  to  Pontefract  Priory,  which  the  King  and  he 
attested,  must  have  been  granted  at  York  when  "  King 
Henry  was  making  his  survey  of  Northumbria  "  (Orderic) 
in  December  of  that  year.  He  next  attests  a  charter  to 
the  Church  of  Exeter,  usually  styled  the  Plympton 
charter.  Unfortunately  it  is  not  above  suspicion,  for 
its  strict  date  ought  to  be  August,  1123,  whilst  the 


236  NUMISMATIC    CHROXICLE. 

King  was  at  Rouen,  but  in  Feudal  England  Mr.  Round 
is  inclined  to  attribute  it  to  the  Easter  court  at  Winchester 
in  the  same  year.  Hugh  Bigod  certainly  accompanied 
Henry  to  Normandy  in  that  year,  for  we  find  his  name 
to  charters  at  Caen  and  Rouen  in  1124  and  1125,  and 
up  to  this  date  it  is  highly  improbable  that  one  so  young 
would  be  entrusted  with  the  custody  of  Ipswich. 

In  September,  1126,  however,  he  would  have  returned 
with  the  King  to  England.  He  was  now  of  age,  and  as 
we  know  that  he  had  not  only  been  confirmed  in  his  here- 
ditary possessions  before  the  current  year  of  the  Pipe 
Roll  (1129-1130),  but  had  apparently  then  paid  off  his 
succession  fees,  we  may  assume  that  he  was  now  duly 
installed  at  Ipswich.  This  date  is  the  more  probable 
because  it  would  be  expedient  that  the  young  Bigod 
should  be  in  a  position,  as  a  baron  of  East  Anglia,  to 
swear  fealty  to  the  Empress  Matilda  at  the  forthcoming 
Christmas  ceremony.  Moreover,  his  confirmation  charter 
must  have  been  granted  before  the  following  August,  as 
he  then  again  left  England.  Hence  type  265  (1126-1128) 
now  appears  from  the  Ipswich  mint.  He  remained  in 
England  less  than  a  year,  for  he  accompanied  the  King 
to  Normandy  in  August,  1127,  and  this  probably  explains 
the  reason  that  very  few  specimens  remain  to  us  of  type 
265.  From  this  time  forward  he  witnesses  most  of  the 
King's  charters,  and  so  we  find  him  at  Rouen  and 
Chartres  until  July,  1131.  Then  we  know  that  he 
returned  with  Henry  to  England,  for  he  witnessed  the 
Arques  charter  "  in  transitu  meo  in  Angliam  "  (Documents 
in  France).  He  attended  the  great  council  at  Northamp- 
ton in  September,  1131,  and  witnessed  numerous  English 
charters  until  1133.  Types  262  (1128-1131)  and  255 
(1131-1135)  are  therefore  in  evidence  at  Ipswich.  In 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.      237 

August,  1133,  he  once  more  journeyed  with  the  King  to 
Normandy  and  was  present  at  the  latter 's  death. 

The  mint  at  Ipswich  fell  into  abeyance  during  the 
earlier  years  of  Henry  II,  and,  after  a  short  revival,  was 
abolished  in  the  reign  of  John  or  Henry  III. 


COINS. 

*  EDGAR  ON  6PIE  253 

Simpson  Rostron  Sale,  1892,  £2  6s. 

*  GERMAN:  [ON  :G]IPE:  4-hENEIEVSE:     262 

S.  Page.  The  moneyer  coined  here  in  Stephen's 
reign,  and  the  family  occur  as  Suffolk  tenants 
in  Domesday. 

Mr.  Page  has  contributed  many  notes  of  the 
coins  of  this  and  the  following  reign. 

ON  GIPE  *  HENRI  REX       251 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.  From  the  Boyne 
Sale,  1896.  The  ornamented  0  is  a  sur- 
vival of  Saxon  art. 


•frLIIFPINE  ON  6IP  *  HENRI  RE          253 

J.  S.  Henderson.  PI.  II,  No.  10.  From 
Montagu,  1896,  £8  12s.  6d.,  and  Shepherd, 
1885,  £8  8s.,  Sales.  Found  in  Somerset- 
shire. This  and  the  preceding  moneyer's 
name  are  contracted  from  that  of  Leofwine, 
who  coined  here  in  the  previous  reign,  and 
his  ancestors  in  Saxon  times. 


•frOSBERN  :  ON  :  GIPE  :  255, 

Watford  find  ;  4  specimens.     Osbern  continued 
to  coin  here  in  the  following  reign,  and  a 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  II 


233  NUMISMATIC    CHRONK'LK. 

Richard  Fitz-Osbern  held  a  Suffolk  fief  under 
Earl  Bigod  in  1165. 

*OSBE  .  .     .  .     6IPE  :  *  ........  255 

British  Museum.     Presented  by  Mr.  Rashleigh. 


•J.O  .  BE  .  .    ON  6IP  .  :  .frhEN  .  .  .  255 

British  Museum.     Presented  by  Mr.  Rashleigh. 

•J.OSBERN  .  .     .  .  PE  :  .  .  .  NRIE  :  255 

B.  Roth. 

•frO  .  .  ER  .  ON  :  6IP  :  *I\ENRIEYS   R  :     255 

Late  J.  Toplis.     From  the  Nottingham  find. 


N  :  ON  :  6IP  :  .  .  .  N 255 

Linton  find.     21  grs. 

*OSPOLDVS  :  ON  .  IP  :  *I\ENRIE  :  262 

Watford   find.     The  name   occurs   on   Saxon 
coins  of  East  Anglia. 

*  ROLAND  ON  6IPE  265 

McEwan  Sale,  1854. 

^RODLAND  ON  filPE  :  .frlxENRI  .  .  .  R  :    262 

British  Museum. 
Sale  at  Edinburgh,  1884       .         .         .         .252 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      239 

LEICESTER. 

LEHERCEASTER,  LECERCEASTER,  LEIRECEASTER,  LIHRACE ASTER, 
LIGRACEASTER,  LiGERCEASTER ;  Domesday,  LEGECESTER  ; 
Pipe  Roll,  LEGRECESTRA. 

Leicester,  the  Rates  of  the  Romans  and  the  Cair  Lerion 
— or  city  of  the  Leir — of  Nennius,  abounds  with  Roman 
antiquities,  and  is  probably  one  of  our  oldest  English 
towns.  During  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  it  was 
the  See  of  the  bishopric  which  ultimately  became  that  of 
Lincoln.  In  874,  when  the  Danes  subdued  Mercia,  the 
See  was  removed  to  Dorchester,  and  Leicester  became  one 
of  the  famous  "  Five  Danish  Burgs,"  but  in  918  the 
Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us  that  Ethelfleda,  King  Alfred's 
daughter,  "  got  into  her  power,  by  treaty,  the  burh  at 
Leicester."  This,  as  Mr.  I..  C.  Gould  in  the  Antiquary 
for  December,  1900,  demonstrates,  must  have  been  the 
existing  artificial  mound,  and  was  therefore  of  Danish 
origin.  Its  freedom  was,  however,  short-lived,  for  the 
same  Chronicle,  under  941,  recites  : 

"  Five  burgs,  Leicester  and  Lincoln  and  Nottingham, 
So  Stamford  eke,  and  Derby 
To  Danes  were  erewhile  under  Northmen 
By  need  constrained,  in  captive  chains 
A  long  time."  (Dr.  Giles.) 

But  in  943  "King  Edmund  besieged  King  Anlaf  and 
Archbishop  "Wulfstan  in  Leicester,  and  would  have  taken 
them  were  it  not  that  they  broke  out  of  the  town  by 
night." 

From  this  time  Leicester  prospered,  and  at  the  date  of 
the  Conquest  was  a  town  of  considerable  population  and 
wealth. 


240  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1081.  King  William  had  evidently,  to  use  Orderic's  words, 
"  granted  the  town  of  Leicester  to  Hugh  de  Grant- 
mesnil  "  prior  to  this  date,  for  the  latter  gives  certain 
tithes  of  his  demesne  at  Leicester  to  the  Abbey  of 
St.  Evroul."  (Orderic.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — "  The  city  of  Leicester  "  in  the 
time  of  the  Confessor  paid  to  the  King  £30  by  num- 
ber [credited]  at  20  [pennies]  to  the  ounce,  and  15 
pints  of  honey.  When  the  King  raised  a  land  force 
twelve  burgesses  accompanied  him,  but  if  it  was  for 
service  by  sea,  they  supplied  four  horses  from  the 
burg  as  far  as  London  to  carry  the  arms,  &c. 

Now  King  William,  for  all  payments  of  the  city  and 
county,  has  £42  10s.  by  weight.  For  one  hawk 
["  pro  uno  accipitre  " — but  is  not  this  an  error  for 
"accapite" — relief  for  the  military  service  ?]  £10  by 
number;  for  the  pack-horse  20s.  "From  the 
moneyers  £20  per  annum  [credited]  at  20  [pennies] 
to  the  ounce.  From  these  £20  Hugh  de  Grantmesnil 
has  the  tertius  denarius''  The  King  has  in  Leicester 
39  houses,  and,  inter  alia,  Hugh  de  Grantmesnil  has 
2  churches  and  110  houses,  and,  in  addition,  he  has 
24  in  common  with  the  King. 

1100.  At  the  date  of   Henry    I's    accession,  Hugh  de 
Grantmesnil  had  been  succeeded  by  his  second,  sur- 
viving, son,  Ivo,  who  had  "  held  for  some  time  his 
father's  domains   in  England."     (Orderic.)      He  re- 
fused to  acknowledge  the  King,  and — 

1101.  "  Set  the  example  of  engaging  in  war  on  his  own 
account,  and  gave  to  the  flames  the  territories  of  his 
neighbours,  such  private  wars  being  hitherto  unknown 
in  England."     (Orderic.) 

1102.  For  this  he  is  called  to  account  and  convicted,  but 
he  offered  to  join  the  second  crusade,  and  "  implored 
the   assistance  of  Robert,  Earl  of  Mellent,  one  of 
Henry's  principal  counsellors,"  and  made  an  agree- 
ment with  him,  namely,  "  The  Earl  was  to  procure 
his  reconciliation  with  the  King,  and  to  advance  him 
500  silver  marks  for  the  expenses  of  his  expedition, 
receiving  the  whole  of  Ivo's  domains  in  pledge  for 
fifteen  years.     In  return  the  Earl  was  to  give  the 
daughter  of  his  brother  Henry,  Earl  of  Warwick,  to 
Ivo's  son,  then  an  infant,  in  marriage,  and  ultimately 
to  restore  to  him  his  father's  possessions.     This  con- 
tract was  confirmed  by  oath  and  ratified  by  the  King's 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       241 

consent."     Ivo  joined  the  crusade  and  died  on  the 
way.     (Orderic.) 

"  The  town  of  Leicester  had  four  masters — the 
King,  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  Earl  Simon  [of  North- 
ampton], and  Ivo,  son  of  Hugh.  The  Earl  of  Mel- 
lent  contrived  to  get  a  footing  in  it  by  the  possession 
of  Hugh's  share,  who  was  reeve  and  sheriff,  and  also 
farmed  the  King's  fourth  of  the  burg.  By  the 
royal  favour  and  his  own  address  he  got  the  whole 
into  his  own  hands,  and  being,  in  consequence, 
created  an  English  Earl,  his  wealth  and  power  sur- 
passed those  of  any  other  peer  of  the  realm.  .  .  . 
His  conscience  being  blinded  by  such  prosperity,  he 
forfeited  his  oath  in  favour  of  Ivo's  son,  so  that,  at 
the  time  appointed,  the  young  man  neither  obtained 
the  wife  he  had  been  promised,  nor  recovered  his 
hereditary  estates  according  to  the  contract  which 
the  Earl  of  Mellent  had  sworn."  In  another  passage 
the  same  authority  says  :  "  Robert  fortunately  received 
from  King  Henry  a  grant  of  the  earldom  of  Leicester, 
with  many  other  rich  favours."  (Forester's  Orderic.) 

1103.  "  The  King  of  England  commissioned  Robert,  Earl 
of  Mellent,  to  put  an  end  to  the  intestine  divisions  of 
Normandy."     (Orderic.) 

1104.  Earl  Robert  welcomes   the   King  in   Normandy. 
(Orderic.) 

1105.  Again  receives  the  King  on  his  second   visit   at 
Easter.     (Orderic.) 

1106.  Commands  the  second  division  of  the  royal  army 
at  Tinchebrai.     (Orderic.) 

1107.  Lent.     Returns  with  the  King  to  England,  wit- 
nesses two  charters  at  the  Easter  Court  at  Windsor, 
and  refounds   the  church  of  St.  Mary  de  Castro  at 
Leicester.     (Monasticon.) 

1108.  Witnesses  the  foundation  charter  of  Lenton  Priory, 
but  in  July  accompanies  Henry  to  Normandy,  and  is 
mentioned  by  Orderic  as  opposing  the  Countess  of 
Evreux. 

1109-10.  Returns  with  the  King  to  England,  and  wit- 
nesses the  charters  to  St.  Andrews,  Northampton, 
Durham,  and  Ely,  the  confirmation  charter  to  Lenton, 
its  grant  to  Cluny  Abbey,  and  the  writ  to  St.  Peter's, 
Ghent. 

1110.  August.  Leaves  England  for  Normandy  with  the 
King. 


242  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

With  the  exception  of  a  visit  to  England  in  1114-17, 
he  remains  in  Normandy  for  the  remainder  of  his  life. 

1110-1118.  In  Normandy  witnesses  charters  to  St. 
Evroul's,  St.  Amand's,  St.  Wandrille's,  to  the  Abbeys 
of  Troan  and  of  the  Holy  Trinity  at  Tiron. 

1114-1117.  He  visits  England  and  witnesses  the  charter 
to  Hyde  Abbey  at  Barnham,  Sussex,  upon  the  journey, 
the  Tavistock  charter  at  Westminster,  and  that  to 
Hulme  Abbey  in  1117. 

1118.  June  5.     He  died  in  Normandy,  and  was  buried 
at   Preaux.     He   left,    with   other   issue,   two   sons, 
Waleran  and  Robert,  twins,  born  in  1104.     Waleran, 
as  the  elder,   presently   succeeding  to   his   Norman 
possessions  as  Earl  of  Mellent,  and  Robert,  following 
the  usual  custom  as  the  second  son,  ultimately  be- 
coming Earl  of  Leicester. 

1119.  During  the  rising  in  Normandy,  "  Waleran  and 
Robert,  the  young  sons  of  the  Earl  of  Mellent,  were 
faithful  to  their  allegiance,  and  their  vassals,  in  their 
well-fortified  castles,  obeyed  all  the  royal  commands, 
and   stoutly  resisted   the   attacks    of    the    enemy." 
(Orderic.) 

1122.  "  The  King  had  kindly  brought  up,  as  if  they  were 
his  own  children,  Waleran  and  Robert  .  .  .  from  the 
time  of   their  father's   death.  .  .  .  The  two  young 
men,    on  arriving  at   the  age   of  puberty,  received 
knighthood  at  the  King's  hands,  and  Waleran  was 
put  in  possession  of  all  his  father's  domains  on  this 
[the   Norman]   side  of  the  sea.    .    .    .    His   brother 
Robert  had  the  earldom  of  Leicester  in  England,  and 
the  King  gave  him  in  marriage  Amicia,  daughter  of 
Ralph  de  Guader,  who  had  been  affianced  to  his  own 
[illegitimate]    son   Richard,   with  Breteuil   and    the 
lands    held  under    it   for   her  dowry."     (Forester's 
Orderic.) 

1123.  Count   Waleran   revolts   in    Normandy,   is   taken 
prisoner  in  1124,  sent  to  England,  and  "kept  prisoner 
for  five  years."     (Orderic.) 

Meanwhile,  the  younger  Robert  is  kept  in  close 
attendance  at  the  King's  Court,  for  he  witnesses  the 
charter  to  Bee  in  1121,  the  Plympton  and  Tewkesbury 
charters  at  the  Easter  Court  at  Winchester  in  1123, 
and  the  charter  to  St.  Mary's,  Coutances,  in 
1124. 
1128-1129.  At  Rouen  witnesses  the  charter  to  St.  Barbe- 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      243 

en-Ange,  but   returns  with  the  King  to  England  in 
July,  1129. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — The  Earl  of  Leicester  accounts 
for  £50  19s.  for  the  cornage  and  forest  rights  which 
belong  to  him,  pays  £23  6s.  8d.,  and  owes  £27  12s.  4d. 
Eichard  FitzNigel  accounts  for  £40  on  an  Exchequer 
plea  for  full  weight  of  silver,  pays  20  marks,  is  par- 
doned 20  marks,  and  owes  20   marks.     Ralph   the 
Pincerna  and  Morin  del  Pin  owe  £42  13s.  4d.  for 
custody  of  the  land  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester. 

1130-31.  The  Earl  again  accompanies  the  King  to  Nor- 
mandy at  Michaelmas,  1130,  and  witnesses  the  charter 
to  St.  Mary  de  Deserto  at  Rouen.  He  returns  with  the 
King  in  July,  1131,  witnessing  the  latter's  charter  to 
Bee  Abbey  at  Arques  "  in  transitu  meo  in  Angliam." 

1131.  September  8.     Is  at  the  Northampton  Council  and 
witnesses  the  charters  to  Salisbury  and  Dover. 

1133.     August.    Is  in  England,  and  witnesses  the  charter 

to  St.  John's,  Falaise,  at  Winchester. 
1133-35.     In  Normandy,  witnesses  charters  to  St.  Mary's, 

Evreux,  and  St.  Mary's,  Coutances,  at  Rouen  ;  and  is 

present  at  Henry's  death  at  Lyons. 

The  mint  at  Leicester — which  according  to  a  schedule 
of  the  monastery  of  St.  Mary  de  Pratis  was  close  to  the 
north  bridge — seems  to  have  been  established  shortly  after 
the  recovery  of  the  burg  from  the  Danes  by  Eadmund 
the  Martyr,  for  we  have  coins  of  it  bearing  his  name ; 
and  also  of  every  succeeding  Saxon  King. 

In  the  reign  of  the  Conqueror,  Hugh  de  Grantmesnil's 
position  at  Leicester  was  very  nearly,  but  not  quite,  that 
of  an  earl.  He  was  castellan  and  sheriff,  but  he  had  not 
the  tertius  denarius  of  the  pleas  of  the  county  which  would 
have  given  him  the  earldom.  He,  however,  had  the 
"  tertius  denarius  "  of  the  mint,  which  constituted  him  its 
grantee,  although  it  still  retained  its  quasi  royal  privileges 
and  thus  came  within  the  scope  of  the  Survey. 

Hugh  de  Grantmesnil  died  in  the  time  of  Rufus  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  son  Ivo,  who  in  1101  "had  held  for 


244  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

some  time  his  father's  domains  in  England."  Immediately 
upon  Henry's  accession,  however,  he  joins  the  cause  of 
Duke  Robert  and  in  1101  openly  revolts  from  the  King. 
He  would  therefore  certainly  not  issue  Henry's  money,  if 
indeed,  which  is  very  doubtful,  he  ever  received  his  con- 
firmation charter  from  that  King.  Hence  type  251  is 
absent  from  our  Leicester  coins.  Mr.  Round,  in  Feudal 
England,  points  out  that  it  must  have  been  during  this 
insurrection  that  the  town  of  Leicester  suffered  the  great 
devastation  recorded  in  the  account  of  the  foundation  of 
Leicester  Abbey.  This  is  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  if  it 
had  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest,  Domesday  would 
have  referred  to  more  than  the  four  houses  as  "  waste," 
which  is  an  unusually  small  number  for  a  town  of  over 
300  houses.  Our  coins  also  suggest  that  something  of 
the  kind  had  occurred  early  in  Henry's  reign,  for  it  would 
explain  the  very  small  coinage  which  appears  to  have 
been  issued  from  the  mint  during  many  subsequent  years. 
At  this  time,  says  Orderic,  "  the  town  of  Leicester  had 
four  masters,"  but  their  shares  in  it  were  by  no  means 
equal.  For  instance,  Simon,  Earl  of  Northampton,  would 
hold  the  original  share  of  the  Countess  Judith  as  the 
husband  of  her  daughter  (see  page  221),  which  at  the  date 
of  Domesday  only  comprised  twenty-eight  houses  and  a 
half  share  in  the  mill.  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  then  had 
the  remaining  half  share  in  the  mill,  two  churches,  seven- 
teen burgesses,  and  a  tithe  from  certain  land  "  without 
the  wall."  Thus  Ivo  de  Grantmesnil  held  by  far  the  lion's 
share  and  he  also  farmed  the  King's  portion  as  castellan. 
"We  have  seen  how,  in  1102,  Robert,  Earl  of  Mellent,  con- 
trived to  obtain  first  the  legal  estate  and  shortly  after- 
wards, on  the  death  of  Ivo  in  1103,  what  we  should  now 
term  the  foreclosure  of  the  latter's  estates  at  Leicester, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      245 

for  the  death  of  either  party  to  an  agreement  in  those 
days  was  considered  sufficient  to  release  the  other. 
Reading  between  the  lines  of  a  transaction,  which  at  the 
best  does  not  redound  to  Earl  Robert's  credit,  we  may  infer 
that  he  had  already  been  appointed  by  the  King  castellan 
of  Leicester  in  Ivo's  stead,  and  that  Ivo's  conviction  and 
fine  were  such  that  his  only  hope  of  escape  from  imprison- 
ment was  to  claim  service  again  as  a  soldier  of  the  Cross, 
and  that  he  was  content  if  he  could  but  bargain  for  his 
English  possessions  to  become  the  ultimate  dowry  of  his 
son's  wife.  As  in  1103  Earl  Simon  of  Northampton  also 
joined  the  crusade  and  a  future  matrimonial  alliance  was 
arranged  between  the  two  families,  we  may  perhaps  safely 
surmise  that  the  wealthy  Earl  of  Mellent  also  equipped 
Earl  Simon  by  purchasing  his  share  in  the  town  of 
Leicester.  Finally,  if  we  set  off  the  promised  refoundation 
and  endowment  of  the  principal  church  of  Leicester 
against  the  claims  of  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  we  follow 
Orderic  step  by  step  until  Earl  Robert  "  got  the  whole 
place  into  his  own  hands,  being  in  consequence  created 
an  English  Earl."  That  Earl  Robert  did  not  style  him- 
self "  Earl  of  Leicester "  is  no  argument  against  the 
creation,  for  the  title  was  always  secondary  to  that  of 
Mellent. 

The  mint  now  falls  into  his  hands  and  he  at  once  issues 
type  254  (1102-1104).  But  during  its  currency  he  is 
appointed  representative  of  the  King  in  Normandy  and 
remains  there  until  early  in  1107,  hence  the  interim  type 
253  is  absent  from  our  coins  of  this  town.  But  from 
Lent,  1107,  to  July,  1108,  he  remains  in  England,  and  so 
type  252  (1106-1108)  is  in  evidence  of  this  visit.  In 
1109  he  is  in  England,  but  no  Leicester  coin  of  the  cur- 
rent type  256  seems  as  yet  to  be  forthcoming.  From  this 

VOL,    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  K  K 


246 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


date  to  the  time  of  his  death  in  1118  he  resides  in  Nor- 
mandy, with  the  exception  of  the  visit  to  England  in 
1114-17,  the  evidence  of  which,  as  given  in  the  Hyde, 
Tavistock  and  Hulme  Abbey  charters  (the  latter  dated 
1117),  is  to  some  extent  corroborated  by  a  coin  of  type 
264  (1116-1118),  which,  although  the  letters  are  not  quite 
distinct,  seems  to  have  been  struck  at  Leicester.  The 
man  who  had  fought  at  Hastings  is  now  well  stricken  in 
years  and  spends  the  closing  year  of  his  life  in  his  old 
home.  Just  as  Eudo,  the  King's  Dapifer  of  Normandy, 
remained  in  that  country  from  the  year  1108  to  his  death 
at  Preaux  in  1120,  and  his  mint  at  Colchester  was  closed 
during  the  entire  period,  so  Earl  Robert,  the  King's 
administrator  of  Normandy,  remains  there  from  the  year 
1110  to  his  death  at  Preaux  in  1118,  with  the  exception 
of  the  years  1114-17,  and  his  mint  at  Leicester  is  also 
similarly  closed,  save  during  his  visit  to  England  as  just 
mentioned. 

The  twins,  Waleran  and  Robert,  were  but  fourteen  years 
old  at  the  time  of  their  father's  death,  and  therefore, 
although  their  names  appear  in  charters  during  the  inter- 
val, they  would  not  be  put  into  possession  of  their  estates 
before  1125.  We  are  incidentally  informed  by  Orderic 
that  Morin  del  Pin  was  appointed,  by  the  King,  guardian 
and  tutor  to  the  young  Count  Waleran,  and  so  we  may 
infer  that  he  acted  in  that  capacity  to  both  the  brothers, 
who,  we  are  told,  were  brought  up  by  the  King  as  if  they 
were  his  own  sons.  Waleran  as  the  elder  was  heir  to  the 
Norman  and  French  estates  and  Robert  to  the  Earldom 
of  Leicester.  In  1119  they  were  both  at  their  hereditary 
castle  of  Breteuil,  and  although  they  were  too  young  to 
take  part  in  the  Norman  war  of  that  j'ear,  Morin  del 
Pin  as  castellan  on  their  behalf  greatly  assisted  the 


-A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      247 

King's  cause.  In  1123,  Count  Waleran  "ardently  de- 
sired an  opportunity  of  exhibiting  his  youthful  valour," 
and  being  "  eager  to  win  the  honour  of  knighthood " 
(Orderic),  revolted  from  the  King  and  took  the  field  for 
"William  Clito.  After  showing  considerable  personal 
bravery  he  was,  however,  taken  prisoner  in  1124,  ulti- 
mately sent  as  such  to  England,  and  "  kept  prisoner 
during  five  years."  It  is  important  to  notice  that  his 
release  would  therefore  date  in  the  year  1129. 

Meanwhile,  we  can  quite  understand  that  King  Henry 
would  keep  a  tight  hand  upon  the  younger  brother,  and 
so  we  find  from  the  evidence  of  numerous  charters  that 
from  1121  to  1130  he  was  constantly  in  attendance  upon 
the  King  himself.  He  came  of  age  in  1125,  but  under 
the  circumstances  of  his  brother's  recent  revolt,  in  which, 
according  to  Matthew  of  Westminster,  he  was  also  con- 
cerned, to  place  him  in  independent  power  at  Leicester 
would  have  been  contrary  to  Henry's  astute  policy.  Like 
the  young  Earl  of  Chester  he  had  been  dubbed  an  Earl 
from  the  age  of  eighteen  at  least,  if  not  from  the  time  of 
his  father's  death,  but  the  Pipe  Eoll  proves  that  he  received 
the  confirmation  charter  of  his  Leicester  estates  in  1129- 
1130. 

His  brother,  Count  "Waleran,  was  released  from  prison  in 
1129  and  "  regranted  the  rental  of  his  estates  "  (William  de 
Monte),  but  was  retained  at  the  King's  Court  (Sax.  Chron.). 
At  the  same  time  the  King  appears  to  have  confirmed 
the  Earldom  of  Leicester  to  Robert.  This  is  proved  by 
the  entry  that  Ralph  the  Pincerna  and  Morin  del  Pin, 
who,  we  remember,  was  the  young  Earl's  guardian  and 
tutor,  owed  £42  13s.  4d.  for  custody  of  the  land  of  the 
Earl  of  Leicester.  Up  to  about  September  29th,  1129, 
therefore,  these  two,  one  the  King's  representative,  the 


248  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

other  the  steward  of  the  household  of  the  late  Earl  of 
Mellent  and  the  guardian  of  the  young  Earl  Robert,  had 
been  collectors  of  the  revenue  of  the  Earldom.  They  pay 
£42  13s.  4d.,  which,  allowing  for  the  difference  between  a 
current  payment  and  one  "  by  weight,"  is,  no  doubt,  the 
exact  firma  of  £42  10s.,  as  given  in  Domesday  of  the 
city  and  county,  thus  showing  that  the  Earl  had  not  as 
yet  his  third  penny.  That  their  office  was  now  at  an  end  is 
shown  by  the  entry  that  the  Earl  himself  accounts  for  the 
cornage  and  forest  rights,  and  so  we  thus  ascertain  that 
the  pardon  of  Count  Waleran  and  the  confirmation  charter 
of  the  Earldom  of  Leicester  to  Earl  Robert  were  concur- 
rently granted  in  1129,  when,  for  the  first  time  after 
attaining  twenty  years  of  age,  the  young  Earl,  in  the 
retinue  of  the  King,  set  foot  in  England.  Hence  up  to 
this  date  no  coinage  at  Leicester  was  possible,  but  now 
type  262  (1128-1131)  naturally  appears  from  the 
mint. 

Morin  del  Pin  had  been  concerned  in  Count  Waleran's 
revolt  and  according  to  Orderic,  who  was  evidently  un- 
aware of  his  administration  of  Leicester,  "  was  banished 
from  Normandy  and  continued  in  exile  in  foreign  lands 
till  the  day  of  his  death."  It  was,  no  doubt,  at  that  date 
— 1124 — that  Henry  transferred  his  immediate  guardian- 
ship of  the  young  Earl  of  Leicester  to  Ralph  Pincerna, 
and  it  was  over  the  attestation  of  the  latter  that  the  Earl 
at  Breteuil  granted  his  first  three  charters  of  privileges 
to  the  burgesses  of  Leicester,  confirming  their  guild  of 
merchants,  their  local  jurisdiction  of  trial,  and  their 
freedom  from  forestry  toll  of  passage.  Ralph  was  the 
grandson  of  Hugh  Pincerna,  who  held  a  barony  in  Essex 
at  the  date  of  Domesday.  As  such  Ralph  was  hereditary 
Pincerna,  and  in  1130  was  receiving  grants  from  the 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      249 

revenue  of  six  counties.  He  afterwards  founded  Alcester 
Abbey. 

The  remaining  entry  quoted  from  the  Roll — that 
Richard  Fitz  Nigel  accounts  for  £40  "p.  plac.  scrinii 
plen.  arg."  is  exactly  a  case  in  point,  as  described  by  the 
Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer  (see  page  8),  of  a  former  sheriff 
having  to  bear  the  loss — or  a  part  of  it — of  debased  or 
light  money  in  his  returns  for  the  county. 

On  the  8th  September,  1131,  the  Earl  attends  the 
great  council  of  Northampton  and  there  witnesses  several 
of  the  King's  charters,  but  after  this  it  is  suggested  that 
he  joined  his  brother  at  Breteuil.  As  Mr.  Round  points 
out,  the  twins  seem  almost  invariably  associated  in  the 
history  of  their  time,  and  it  is  significant  that  whilst 
between  the  autumn  of  1131  and  August,  1133,  Earl 
Robert's  name  disappears  from  English  charters,  there  are 
several  granted  in  Normandy  bearing  it  which  with  some 
confidence  can  be  assigned  to  the  interval.  For  instance, 
of  the  three  before-mentioned  charters  granted  by  the 
Earl  to  the  burgesses  of  Leicester,  two  are  stated  to  have 
been,  and  the  third,  probably,  was  executed  at  Breteuil. 
These  could  not  have  been  granted  before  the  Earl 
received  his  estates,  and,  as  they  are  all  witnessed  by 
Ralph  Pincerna,  not  before  the  date — probably  Michael- 
mas— in  1130  when  Ralph  returned  his  accounts  in  the 
Roll,  for  he  was  then  still  in  England.  Hence,  as  the  Earl 
was  only  in  Normandy  for  a  few  months  between  that 
date  and  September,  1131,  it  is  improbable  that  he 
would  then  have  granted  three  distinct  charters  to 
Leicester,  when  they  could  well  have  awaited  his  return. 
We  may  therefore  assume  that  they  were  granted  after 
September,  1131,  when  the  Earl  had  taken  up  his  perma- 
nent abode  at  Breteuil.  On  the  other  hand,  one  of  them 


250  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

at  least  is  a  confirmation  charter,  so  would  not  long  be 
delayed.  A  reason  for  his  residence  in  Normandy  and  for 
the  presence  of  Ralph  Pincerna  may  be  the  fact  that,  as 
William  de  Monte  tells  us,  though  the  King  regranted  the 
rental  of  his  estates  to  Count  Waleran,  he  would  not  entrust 
to  him  his  castles.  It  is  true  that  Earl  Robert's  name 
appears  on  the  Winchester  charter  to  St.  John's,  Falaise, 
dated  1133  ;  but  it  seems  to  stand  alone  between  1131  and 
1135  against  the  numerous  charters  of  Normandy,  and 
as  we  know  that  the  Earl  was  in  the  latter  country  from 
1133  to  the  King's  death  in  1135,  we  may  assume  that  it 
represented  but  a  passing  visit  to  England  and  that  his 
residence  during  the  whole  period  of  issue  of  type  255 
(September  29th,  1131  to  1135)  was  otherwise  in  Nor- 
mandy. This  only  would  explain  the  absence  from  our 
cabinets  of  a  Leicester  specimen  of  so  plentiful  a  type  as 
255. 

Our  coins  tell  us  that  this  mint  was  continued  until  the 
early  years  of  Henry  II,  and  the  entry  in  the  1156  Pipe 
Roll,  that  the  sheriff  spent  12s.  6d.  in  conducting  [to 
trial]  the  false  moneyers  of  Leicester,  may  offer  some  ex- 
planation of  its  suppression. 

COINS. 
^EDMVND  :  ON  LEB,  .J-hENBICVS :        264 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  From  Viscount  Dillon's  Sale, 
1892.  The  Earl  probably  introduced  this 
moneyer  from  Lincoln,  where  the  name  fre- 
quently occurs  on  Saxon  and  Norman  coins. 
Note  the  connection  between  these  towns 
referred  to  on  pages  241  and  245. 

4.FVIL6BED  ON  LE  -frfiENKI  :  EE  :      252 

British  Museum.    Fig.  D,  p.  52.     PI.  VIII.  No.  4, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      251 

This  moneyer  also  came  from  Lincoln,  where 
he  had  coined  for  Rufus. 

•frFYGEED  ON  LE  *I\ENEIE  EEX    252 

Engraved,  Snelling,  i.,  14  ;  Ending,  Sap., 
i.  9.  From  the  Hodsoll  and  Tyssen,  1802, 
collections.  Probably  the  previous  coin. 


*WAEM  .  .    ON  LE  262 

Montagu  Sale,  1897,  and  Wakeford  collection. 

•frWAEM  .  .   ON  LE  IxENE  .  .  .  S  E       262 

Watford  find.  But  read  -frWAEM  ....  INEE 
and  appropriated  to  Winchester. 


ON  :  LEEE  :  IxENEIEY  .  EE      262 

Watford  find. 


•frPVLFPIlSE  ON1EE  *HENEI  EEX       264 

L.  A.  Lawrence. 


ON  LEI  ^HENEI  E  254 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  The 
LEI  is  no  doubt  part  of  LEE,  contracted 
for  want  of  space. 

For  coins  of  types  251,  263  and  IV.,  hitherto  usually 
assigned  to  this  mint,  see  under  Chester,  Lewes  and 
Winchester. 


LEWES  (SUSSEX). 

L.ZEWES,  L.EWEN,  LESWA  ;  Domesday  and  the  Pipe  Roll,  LEWES. 
Lewes  claims   Celtic  and   Roman   antiquity,  and  the 


252  NVMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

numerous  tumuli  and  earthworks  surrounding  it  certainly 
corroborate  a  remote  origin.  The  town  was  a  royal 
demesne  of  the  Saxon  Kings,  from  whom  it  received  the 
privilege  of  a  market,  and  it  was  a  place  of  considerable 
importance  at  the  date  of  the  Conquest. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — The  burg  of  Lewes  in  the  Con- 
fessor's time  returned  £6  4s.  3£d.  for  tax  and  toll. 
King  Edward  had  127  burgesses  in  lordship,  whose 
custom  was  that,  if  the  King  wished  to  send  his 
burgesses  to  guard  the  sea  without  accompanying 
them,  twenty  shillings  were  collected  from  all  the  men, 
irrespective  as  to  whomsoever  the  land  [which  they 
held]  belonged,  which  those  who  had  charge  of  the 
arms  in  the  ships  had.  The  fines  and  market  duea 
are  set  out  in  detail.  When  the  money  is  renewed 
(i.e.,  the  type  changed)  each  moneyer  gives  20s.  Of 
all  these,  two  parts  were  the  King's  and  the  third  the 
Earl's.  Now  the  burg  in  all  things  pays  the  same  as 
before  and  38s.  in  addition.  In  the  time  of  the  Con- 
fessor the  whole  was  worth  £26.  The  King  had  the 
middle  [penny]  and  the  Earl  had  the  remainder. 
Now  it  is  worth  £34,  and  for  new  money  (i.e.,  a  change 
of  type)  one  hundred  and  twelve  shillings ;  from  all  of 
these  [payments]  William  de  Warren  has  the  middle 
[penny]  and  the  King  the  remainder. 

1100.  William   de  Warren,   who   was   created    Earl   of 
Surrey,  died  from  the  effects  of  a  wound  received  at 
the  siege  of  Pevensey,  and  had  been  succeeded  by  his 
son  William  de  Warren  II,  now  in  England. 

1100-1.  He  is  confirmed  in  his  possessions  by  Henry  I, 
who  grants  a  charter  to  Lewes  Priory  "rogatu  Williebni 
Comitis  Sugreg."  (Monastic on.) 

But  meanwhile,  "at  first  in  secret  but  afterwards 
openly,"  he  advocates  Duke  Robert's  claims.  (Orderic.) 

1101.  Midsummer.    At  Arundel,  ostensibly  in  arms  for 
the  King,  he  witnesses  the  charter  to  Otho  fitz  Otto 
the  Aurifaber  (see  page  47). 

August.  Deserts  Henry's  camp  and  joins  Duke 
Robert  on  his  arrival.  (Orderic.) 

September.  After  the  declaration  of  peace  he 
accompanies  Duke  Robert  to  Henry's  Court  and  wit- 
nesses the  charters  to  Bath  and  Norwich.  (Monas- 
ticon.) 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY  OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HEXRY  I.      253 

November.  Duke  Robert  returns  to  Normandy, 
"  taking  with  him  William  de  Warren  and  several 
others  who  had  been  disinherited  for  their  share  in 
his  enterprise."  (Orderic.) 

1102-3.  In  Normandy  De  Warren  witnesses  Duke  Robert's 
charter  to  St.  Stephen's,  Caen.  (Docs,  of  France.) 

1103,  Presents  himself  "  in  great  distress  to  Duke  Robert 
and  represents  to  him  the  severe  loss  he  had  sustained 
in  bis  services,  having  forfeited  his  Earldom  of  Surrey, 
which  had  produced  him  the  yearly  revenue  of  a 
thousand  pounds  of  silver,"  urging  him  to  procure 
his  pardon  and  restoration. 

The  Duke  visits  the  King  in  England  (see  page  51) 
and  effects  the  restoration  of  De  Warren  to  "  the 
Earldom  of  Surrey,"  who  "  afterwards  adhered  faith- 
fully to  the  King." 

1106.  The  Earl  commands  the  third  division  of  the 
Royal  army  at  Tinchebrai.  (Orderic.) 

1107-10.  In  England  witnesses  the  charters  to  St.  Mary's 
Bee,  Northampton,  Durham,  Ely,  and  St.  Peter's, 
Ghent. 

About  this  time  he  is  appointed  castellan  of  St. 
Saens.  (Orderic.) 

1118.  March   7.     In   Normandy   witnesses   the   charter 
to  the  Holy  Trinity,  Savigny;  and  in  1115  that  to 
the    Holy    Trinity,    Tiron,    at    Rouen.     (Docs,    of 
France.) 

1116-18.  Returns  to  England  and  witnesses  the  charters 
to  St.  Mary's,  Rouen,  and  Hulme  Abbey. 

1119.  August.    Joins  the  army  in  Normandy  and  takes  a 
leading  part  in  the  battle  of  Bre"mule. 

1121-3.  In  England  witnesses  the  charters  to  Bardney, 
Binham,  and  Plympton. 

1128-1130.  Accompanies  Henry  to  Normandy  in  1123 
and  remains  there  until  1130,  witnessing  the  charters 
to  Hyde  Abbey,  Mont  St.  Michel,  Lessay,  Fecamp 
(2),  St.  Mary's,  Evreux,  St.  Mary  de  Deserto,  St. 
Barbe-en-Ange,  St.  Laurence  of  Envermeu,  &c.,  and 
grants  his  own  charter  to  Longueville  Priory.  (Mon- 
asticon  and  Docs,  of  France.) 

1180.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — The  Roll  is  here  defective,  but  it 
appears  that  the  sheriff  accounts  for  £9  for  Danegeld, 
sixty  marks  of  silver  for  two  murders  in  the  Hundred , 
ten  marks  for  one  in  the  burg  of  Lewes,  and 
£12  7s.  6d.  for  murders  in  the  previous  year  and 

VOL.    1.    FOURTH    SERIES.  L    L 


254  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

treasury  pleas.     These  sums  are  paid  "  by  the  King's 
writ  to  the  Earl  of  Warren." 

1131.  The  Earl  is  still  in  Normandy  and  witnesses  the 
charter  of  Fontevrault,  January  13th,  and  the  Papal 
Bull  to  Clany,  May  20th.  (Docs,  of  France.) 

July.  Returns  with  the  King  to  England,  witness- 
ing the  charter  to  Bee  at  Arques  on  the  journey. 
(Docs,  of  France.) 

September  8.  Is  at  the  "Northampton  Council  and 
witnesses  the  charters  to  Salisbury  and  Dover.  (Mon- 
asticon.)  And,  probably  at  this  date,  grants  his  own 
charter  to  Lewes  Priory. 

1132-3.  Witnesses  the  charters  to  St.  Jean  de  Falaise  at 
Harden,  Sussex,  and  at  Winchester.  (Docs,  of 
France.) 

1133-5.  Accompanies  King  Henry  to  Normandy  and  is 
present  at  his  death  at  Lyons.  (Orderic.) 

Lewes  was  one  of  the  towns  which  were  allowed  two 
moneyers  under  the  Law  of  King  Athelstan,  and  coins 
reading  L.ZE  of  that  King  are  assigned  to  it.  It  became  a 
prolific  mint  under  the  later  Saxon  Kings  and  the  names 
of  all,  from  Edgar  to  Harold  II,  appear  upon  its 
coins. 

As  constituted  by  the  Law  of  Athelstan,  that  of  Lewes 
was  a  royal  mint.  The  moneyers,  therefore,  were  tenants 
in  capite  of  the  King  and  paid  their  fees  to  him.  Hence 
in  Domesday  we  find  that  under  the  Confessor  each 
moneyer  paid  20s.  when  a  new  type  was  issued,  of  which 
the  Earl,  however,  had  the  tertius  denarius.  But  in  the 
same  paragraph  we  are  told  that,  in  1086,  the  town  "  is 
worth  £34,  and  for  new  money  112s.,  of  which  William 
de  Warren  receives  the  tertius  denarius."  To  the  casual 
observer  this  would  appear  to  be  a  mere  increase  in  the 
assessment  of  the  mint,  but  it  did  not  necessarily  mean 
even  that,  for  of  the  thirteen  moneyers  at  Lewes  during 
the  reign  of  the  Confessor,  there  were  possibly  half-a- 
dozen  each  paying  the  20s.  in  office  at  one  and  the  same 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      255 

time.  The  distinction  is  much  more  important.  Under 
the  Confessor  the  moneyers  were  individually  assessed, 
but  in  1086  the  burg  was  assessed  at  £34  in  ordinary 
years,  which  was  increased  by  £5  12s.  in  the  years  when 
the  money  was  changed.  This  is  abundant  evidence  that,  as 
at  Huntingdon  and  Dorchester,  "  King  William  had  laid 
the  tax  of  the  mint  on  the  burg "  (see  page  223) ;  in 
other  words,  had  farmed  the  privilege  of  coinage  to  the 
burgesses ;  but  it  was,  nevertheless,  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  De  Warren  as  holder  of  the  tertius  denarius  of  the 
joint  rent  of  burg  and  mint. 

On  Henry's  accession,  therefore,  in  1100,  coinage  was 
naturally  continued  by  the  burghers,  for  De  Warren  was 
in  England  and  receives  his  confirmation  charter  from 
the  new  King,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  Lewes  charter. 
Type  251  (1100-1102)  therefore  now  appears  and  gives 
us  the  names  of  two  moneyers.  But  in  1101  the  mint 
suddenly  ceased,  and  we  have  no  more  coins  bearing  its 
name  during  the  entire  reign.  For  thirty-four  years  the 
privilege  of  coinage  was  withheld  from  the  quasi  royal 
mint,  which,  botn*  before  and  afterwards,  was  one  of  the 
most  prolific  in  the  kingdom.  It  would  not  be  sufficient 
to  explain  this  numismatic  catastrophe  by  the  misfor- 
tunes of  the  Earl,  for  though,  in  any  case,  the  mint 
would  necessarily  have  been  closed  during  his  exile, 
after  his  restoration  to  the  Earldom  of  Surrey,  to  which 
the  town  of  Lewes  seems  to  have  been  appended,  it  would 
have  been  reopened  during  the  years  he  spent  in  England. 
We  must  therefore  look  for  another  explanation.  We 
have  seen  from  Domesday  that  the  burg  held  its  privi- 
leges upon  the  custom  of  providing  the  men  who  had 
charge  of  the  arms  in  the  ships  which  guarded  the  sea. 
The  expression,  when  the  King  called  out  his  fleet  "  with- 


256  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

out  accompanying  it,"  draws  a  distinction  between  the 
ordinary  use  of  the  ships  for  mere  transport  of  himself 
and  his  army  to  Normandy  and  the  ancient  purpose  of 
the  fleet  for  guarding  the  shore  from  invasion.  The  burg 
of  Lewes  therefore  supplied  the  armourers  to  the  fleet 
only  in  case  of  threatened  invasion,  and  the  burgesses 
contributed  20s.  towards  their  outfit.  The  news  of  Duke 
Robert's  invasion  in  the  summer  of  1101  called  out  the 
fleet,  and  each  ship  would  contain  an  armourer  of  Lewes, 
whose  position  would  probably  be  that  of  second  in  com- 
mand, but  who  would  be  under  the  influence  of  his  lord, 
Earl  Warren,  then  plotting  the  betrayal  of  the  King. 
This,  in  a  great  measure,  explains  the  treachery  of  the 
fleet  which  is  recorded  by  Florence  as  follows  : 

1101.  "  Robert  Earl  of  Normandy,  having  raised  a  large 
body  of  horsemen,  archers,  and  foot  soldiers,  assembled 
his  ships  at  a  place  called  in  the  Norman  tongue 
Ultres-port.  The  King  receiving  intelligence  of  this, 
ordered  his  boat-carles  to  guard  the  sea,  and  to  watch 
that  no  one  approached  the  coast  of  England  from  Nor- 
mandy ;  .  .  .  The  Earl,  however,  by  the  advice  of 
Bishop  Ralph,  so  tampered  with  the  fidelity  of  some 
of  the  King's  boat-carles  by  promises  of  various  kinds, 
that,  throwing  off  their  allegiance,  they  deserted  to 
the  Earl,  and  became  his  pilots  to  England." 
(Forester.) 

Thus  the  cases  of  Dover  and  Lewes  are  identical ;  both 
burgs  held  the  privilege  of  coinage  and  coined  plentifully 
in  type  251 ;  both  forfeited  the  privilege  through  the 
treason  of  their  boat-carles,  and  to  neither  was  it  restored 
so  long  as  King  Henry  lived. 

The  mint  was  reopened  on  Stephen's  accession,  but 
seems  to  have  been  finally  discontinued  at  the  close  of 
his  reign. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      257 


COINS. 

.frBRHTMR  ON  LEP  [>H]EHH  RE*    25 1 

British  Museum. 


•frBRHTMR  ON  .  EP  *HNNI  RE  .  251 

W.  J.  Andrew.  PI.  II,  No.  4.  From  the 
Robinson  Sale,  1891. 

•J.PINNRIED  ON  LEI  *HNRI  REX  N    251 

J.  Verity.  From  the  Durrant,  1847,  £7 13s.  Od.; 
Wigan,  Brice,  and  Montagu,  1896,  £5  5s.  Od., 
collections.  This  coin  was  perhaps  correctly 
attributed  by  Mr.  Grueber  to  Chester,  but 
the  legend  .frPINRIED  ON  LIEP  on  some 
of  the  Williams'  types  leaves  the  balance  of 
probability  equal.  (See  Chester.) 

Hugh  Howard  Sale,  1874.  251 

As  to  the  coin  of  type  264,  previously  given  to  this  mint,  see 
pp.  41,  246,  and  250. 


LINCOLN. 

LlNOOLNE,    LlNCOLNIA,    LlNDECOLNIA,    NlCHOL,  NlCOLE  J 

day,  LINCOLIA  ;  Pipe  Roll,  LINCOLN. 

Lincoln,  "  the  fair  city  of  Lindsey,"  was  one  of  the 
principal  links  in  the  great  chain  of  Roman  subjugation 
of  Britain.  Later  it  was  a  British  stronghold,  and  later 
still  one  of  "  the  Five  Danish  Burgs."  Bede  refers  to 
it  as  a  city  in  his  day,  and  records  its  early  conversion 
to  Christianity  under  the  year  627.  It  was  the  capital 
of  the  Saxon  Earls  of  Mercia,  and  as  such  was  in  the 
arena  of  the  Danish  struggles  for  conquest.  Neverthe- 


258  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

less  it  continued  to  prosper,  and  at  the  close  of  the  Saxon 
era  was  one  of  the  most  prosperous  and  populous  cities  in 
the  kingdom. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  city  of  Lincoln  there 
were,  in  King  Edward's  time,  970  inhabited  houses, 
computed,  according  to  the  English  custom,  of  one 
hundred  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  [i.e.,  1,150]. 
There  were  and  are  twelve  "  lage-men  "  who  had  sac 
and  soc  (whose  names  will  be  referred  to  presently). 
The  market  and  "  wall " — perhaps  the  Roman  wall — 
are  mentioned,  and  also  Bishop  Remigius  (who  had 
lately  transferred  his  See  from  Dorchester,  in  Oxford- 
shire, to  Lincoln,  and  has  large  ecclesiastical  posses- 
sions in  Lincoln  itself  and  the  county).  Of  the 
inhabited  houses  in  the  Confessor's  time  200 — 
according  to  the  English  numeration,  i.e.  240 — are 
now  waste,  leaving  770  inhabited,  166  having  been 
destroyed  for  [the  defences  of]  the  castle.  Ivo  Tail- 
lebois  has  large  possessions  in  the  county,  and  is 
castellan  of  Lincoln. 

"In  the  time  of  King  Edward  the  city  of  Lincoln 
paid  £20  to  the  King  and  £10  to  the  Earl.  Now  it 
pays  £100  by  number  between  the  King  and  Earl. 
But  the  mint  pays  £75." 

1092.  Death  of  Bishop  Remigius  (Florence).  "  Near  the 
castle,  the  lofty  towers  of  which  commanded  the  city, 
Remigius  built  a  cathedral,  which  for  strength  and 
beauty  was  both  fitting  for  the  service  and,  as  the 
times  required,  impregnable  to  hostile  attacks." 
(Huntingdon.) 

1098.     Robert  Bloet  appointed  Bishop. 

1102.  Upon  Robert  de  Beleme's  revolt  Bishop  Bloet,  no 
doubt  in  his  capacity  of  Justiciary,  commands  the 
Northern   division   of  the  King's   army  and  subdues 
the  Earl's  stronghold  of  Tickhill  in  Yorkshire.     (Flor- 
ence.) 

1103.  After  recounting  the  death  in  Ireland  of  Magnus 
Barefoot,  King  of  Norway,  Orderic  tells  us  that  "a 
rich    citizen    of  Lincoln    kept  the  treasure   of  King 
Magnus  and  supplied  him  with  ornaments,  plate,  arms, 
furniture,  and  whatever  else  the  royal  service  required. 
This  man,  having  learnt  the  King's  death,  hastened 
home,  and  trafficking  with  the  King's  treasure,  speedily 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       259 

amassed  vast  wealth.  Meanwhile,  the  King  of  Eng- 
land received  the  intelligence  that  Magnus  was  slain 
with  great  satisfaction,  feeling  himself  relieved  from  a 
great  burden,  and  some  time  afterwards  [?  in  1108] 
required  the  citizen  of  Lincoln  to  give  up  the  late 
King's  treasure.  The  merchant  at  first  denied  that 
he  had  any  such  deposit,  but  the  King,  having  con- 
victed him  of  the  falsehood,  suddenly  arrested  him, 
and  extorted  from  him,  as  it  is  said,  more  than  twenty 
thousand  pounds  of  silver."  (Forester.) 

1108-9.  April.  From  a  writ  to  St.  Peter's  at  Ghent  the 
King  is  said  to  have  now  visited  Lincoln.  (Docs,  in 
France.)  But  the  evidence  "  Apud  Lint "  is  not 
quite  conclusive. 

1121.  "At  this  time  Henry  having,  by  digging,  made  a 
long  trench  from  Torksey  as  far  as  Lincoln,  by  turning 
into  it  the  river  Trent,  made  a  passage  for  shipping." 
(Hoveden.)  This  ought  to  throw  grave  doubts 
upon  the  generally  accepted  theory  of  the  Roman 
origin  of  the  Fosse  Dyke,  although  it  is  possible  that 
this  (excepting,  perhaps,  the  Danish  dyke  through 
Southwark),  our  first  ship  canal,  may  have  followed 
the  lines  of  some  previously  existing  aqueduct. 
Malmesi»ury  describes  Lincoln  in  his  time  (circa  1130- 
1142)  as  "  one  of  the  most  populous  cities  in  Eng- 
land, and  a  mart  for  all  goods  coming  by  land  and 
water." 

1123.  Sudden  death  of  Bishop  Bloet  whilst  riding  with 
the  King  at  Woodstock.  Huntingdon,  in  his  "  Letter 
to  Walter,"  says  he  was  Justiciary  of  England,  had 
immense  wealth  and  a  gorgeous  retinue  of  knights. 

May.  "  Before  the  new  Bishop  came  to  the  See, 
the  whole  town  of  Lincoln  was  burnt,  with  a  great 
number  of  persons,  both  men  and  women  ;  and  so 
much  barm  was  done  that  no  man  could  tell  another 
how  great  the  damage  was."  (Sax.  Chron.) 

July  22.  Alexander,  Archdeacon  of  Salisbury  and 
nephew  of  Roger,  Bishop  of  that  see,  consecrated 
Bishop  of  Lincoln. 

1130.  Pipe  Koll  notes.— The  burgesses  pay  200  marks 
of  silver  and  4  marks  of  gold  that  they  may  hold  the 
city  [direct]  from  the  King  in  capite  [i.e.,  without 
accounting  through  the  sheriff  for  their  firma — see 
Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  p.  362],  and  £49  12s.  2d.  tn 
auxilium.  The  Weavers'  Guild  renders  certain  fees 


1260  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

for  its  privileges,  and  Bishop  Alexander  owes  £22  for 
the  previous  year's  military  service.  "  Godric  de 
Grimsby  pays  2J  marks  of  silver  on  a  certain  Treasury 
plea."  "  Gerard  de  Grimsby  owes  £17  Is.  Od.  on  a 
certain  Treasury  [account]."  "  Siwatus  de  Holland 
accounts  for  12£  marks  of  silver  on  a  plea  of  false 
coining  (fahonarii),  pays  40s.  and  owes  9£  marks." 
"  Osbertus  Palmarius  accounts  for  15  marks  of  silver 
for  Toch  the  false  coiner  who  absconded,  pays  7 
marks  and  owes  8  marks."  "  Gerardus  de  Linberga 
(Limber)  accounts  for  20  marks  of  silver  on  a  Treasury 
plea,  pays  5  marks  and  owes  15  marks.'1  "  Elwi 
and  Schiepman  account  for  10  marks  of  silver  on  a 
Treasury  plea,  pay  4  and  owe  6  marks  (under  Rut- 
land)." 

1181.  May.  King  Henry  by  charter,  which  is  confirmed 
by  Pope  Innocent  II,  grants  40  marks  of  silver  ["  50," 
according  to  one  version,  so  the  "40"  is  perhaps 
according  to  the  English  custom]  from  the  firma  of 
the  City  of  Lincoln  to  the  Abbey  of  Cluny,  to  be 
annually  paid  through  the  Exchequer  at  Michaelmas. 
(Docs,  of  France.) 

The  name  of  Lincoln  first  appears  upon  coins  issued 
during  the  Danish  occupation  of  the  city  in  the  reigns  of 
Alfred  and  Edward  the  Elder ;  and  those  who,  like  Mr. 
Clark,  Mr.  Gould,  and  Mr.  Round,  are  interested  in  the 
study  of  pre-Norman  earthworks,  may  notice  how  uni- 
formly the  origin  of  a  mint  seems  to  follow  the  probable 
date  of  the  completion  of  the  great  Danish  or  Saxon 
Mound  of  its  burh. 

It  was,  no  doubt,  as  a  survival  from  the  time  when 
Lincoln  was  the  chief  centre  of  the  Danish  occupation  of 
England  that  a  branch  of  the  Treasury  of  the  Kings  of 
Norway  remained  at  that  city  so  late  as  the  reign  of 
Henry  I.  The  account  of  its  confiscation,  quoted  above 
from  Orderic,  under  the  year  1103,  is  peculiarly  interest- 
ing in  view  of  certain  coins  of  Magnus  the  Good,  of 
^Norway,  and  other  Danish  Kings  of  the  eleventh  century, 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      261 

perhaps  even  of  Magnus  Barefoot  himself,  which  bear 
the  curious  legends  on  the  reverse — *  OSSAR  MO  LINE, 
•KSTEINBIT  ON  LINE,  *  LEFPINE  ON  LINEO  and 
*AREIL  ON  LINE  [not  LVND  as  sometimes  printed].  May 
we  not,  therefore,  infer  that  "  the  rich  citizen  of  Lincoln 
who  kept  the  treasure  of  King  Magnus  and  supplied  him 
with  ornaments,  plate,  arms,  furniture,  and  whatever  else 
the  royal  service  required,"  supplied  him  with  money 
struck  at  Lincoln  ?  A  Lefwine  coined  here  for  Rufus, 
and  may  not  AREIL,  who  was  coining  in  King  Henry's 
type  251  (1100-1102)  just  prior  to  the  date  of  the  inci- 
dent, have  been  "the  rich  citizen"  himself?  This  seems 
to  throw  a  new  light  upon  Mr.  S.  Smith's  interesting 
paper  in  Num.  Chron.,  1888,  p.  138. 

From  Edgar  to  Harold  II  the  name  of  every  King 
appears  upon  the  Lincoln  coinage,  and,  with  the  exceptions 
of  those  of  London  and  Winchester,  no  mint  was  more 
prolific  in  its  output.  This  fact  is  not  only  evidenced  in 
our  cabinets,  but  corroborated  by  Domesday,  for  the 
returns  of  the  two  excepted  cities  are  not  recorded,  but 
the  mint  of  Lincoln,  in  1086,  pays  a  considerably  larger 
firma  than  any  other  in  the  kingdom. 

The  historical  light  we  are  now  enabled  to  throw  upon 
the  Domesday  records  of  Lincoln  is  startling.  We  have 
seen  that  the  Survey  opens  with  the  number  of  inhabited 
houses  and  an  account  of  twelve  "  lagernen "  who  had 
soc  and  sac  or  tol  and  team.  These  "  lagemen  "  have,  not 
unnaturally,  been  promoted  into  an  imaginary  civic 
governing  body — or  commune — just  a  century  before 
any  such  municipal  authority  was  possible  in  England  ! 
To  quote  the  words  of  a  well-known  authority  : 

"  When  in  1068  the  Conqueror  marched  from  York  to  Cam- 
bridge he  paused  at  Lincoln,  even  then  a  very  important  place, 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  M  M 


262  NUMISMATIC    CHROXICLE. 

fenced  in  and  populous,  not  indeed  as  yet  boasting  a  minster, 
but  numbering  1,150  inhabited  houses,  a  leading  member  of  the 
famous  Danish  civic  confederation,  and  governed  by  twelve 
lawmen,  who  wielded  powers  elsewhere  exercised  by  the  terri- 
torial lords."  (Mediceval  Military  Architecture,  vol.  ii.,p.  193.) 

To  explain  their  true  position  we  must,  however,  first 
glance  at  the  history  of  the  city  at  this  period.  Up  to 
comparatively  recently,  before  the  date  of  Domesday,  it 
had  been  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Earls  of  Mercia, 
and,  therefore,  in  the  Confessor's  time,  we  are  told,  the 
Earl  had  the  third  penny.  In  1086,  however,  the 
Earldom  had  been  forfeited  and  the  Earl  slain,  but, 
nevertheless,  as  at  Dover  (p.  175)  and  other  places,  the 
usual  custom  was  continued  of  maintaining  the  existing 
tertius  denarius  in  view  of  a  possible  revival  of  the  Earl- 
dom, which  revival,  in  this  instance,  did  afterwards  occur 
when,  in  the  reign  of  Stephen,  William  de  Roumare,  the 
descendant  on  the  spindle  side  of  the  Saxon  Earls  of 
Mercia,  was  created  Earl  of  Lincoln.  Hence  Domesday 
tells  us  that  iheftrma  of  the  city  is  now  £100  "  between  the 
King  and  the  Earl,"  but,  of  course,  the  King  also  received 
the  Earl's  share  under  the  forfeiture.  There  is,  however, 
no  such  reservation  concerning  the  firma  of  the  mint ; 
we  read,  "but  the  mint  pays  £75."  This  places  the 
mint  upon  an  equal  footing  in  the  accounts  with  the  city 
itself,  each  is  separately  assessed,  but  the  firma  of  the 
mint  is  paid  solely  to  the  King,  whereas  that  of  the  city 
is  divided  between  King  and  Earl.  Thus  the  former 
must  have  been  excepted  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Earl,  and  so  remained  throughout  a  royal  mint  pure  and 
simple. 

To  quote  from  our  first  page,  "  the  moneyers  of  these 
(the  royal)    mints   only   were,  therefore,  officers    of  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I        263 

Crown ;  men,  often,  of  considerable  wealth  and  import- 
ance, and  in  virtue  of  their  office  tenants  in  capite  of  the 
King."  It  must  be  quite  clear  that  if  the  mint  at  Lin- 
coln was  assessed  directly  to  the  King,  its  moneyers  came 
under  the  legal  definition  of  tenants  in  capite  as  "holdin^ 
immediately  from  the  King,"  and,  as  such,  they  were 
entitled  to  their  sac  and  soc.  Just  as  the  City  of  Lincoln 
was  responsible  for  the  payment  of  a  firma  of  £100,  so 
the  moneyers  of  Lincoln  were  responsible  for  the  pay- 
ment of  a  firma  of  £75,  and,  therefore,  it  was  equally 
essential  that  their  names  or  identity  should  be  disclosed 
in  the  Roll.  Had  there  been  but  one  or  two,  this  would 
not  have  been  necessary,  for  the  office  would  have  been 
rarely  changed,  but  with  so  many  as  at  Lincoln,  it  was 
necessary  to  keep  a  constant  record  of  those  responsible 
for  the  King's  rent. 

We  now  return  to  the  record.  The  word  "  lagemen," 
in  the  quotation  from  Mediaeval  Military  Architecture,  given 
above,  is  evidently  treated  as  being  derived  from  laga= 
law,  i.e.  "law-men."  But  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  we 
find  the  terms  "  smale  manni "  and  "  homines  minuti "  con- 
stantly used  to  describe  the  serfs  or  bondmen ;  so  here 
the  term  "  lagemen "  must  surely  mean  the  opposite, 
*  e.  the  free  men  or  tenants  in  capite.  In  fact  the  term 
survives  to  us  in  the  King's  proclamations  to  his  "  liege- 
subjects."  Thus,  instead  of  implying  some  civic  authority, 
the  twelve  lagemen  of  the  Lincoln  Survey  were  merely 
twelve  citizens  who  were  separately  assessed  to  the  King 
as  freemen  holding  their  lands  or  offices  directly  from 
him  (cf.  Oxford,  pages  353-354). 

Ought  we  not,  therefore,  to  be  able  to  identify  some  of 
them  as  the  King's  tenants  of  the  mint  ?  In  the  time  of 
the  Confessor  they  were  : — 


264  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

1.— "Hardecnut."  "  HAEDEENVT  "  appears  on  the 
Lincoln  coins  of  the  previous  reign,  but  we  have  not 
yet  found  the  name  on  the  Confessor's  coins. 

2.—"  Svartin[c],  son  of  Grimbold."  "  SPAETINE," 
moneyer  of  the  Confessor,  and  "  GEIM,"  moneyer  of 
Ethelred  II. 

8.__«  Vlf,  son  of  Svertebrand."  "  VLF,"  moneyer  of  the 
Confessor,  and  "  SPEETEBEAND  "  of  Harold  I. 

4.— "  Walraven."  "PALEAFAN,"  moneyer  of  the  Con- 
fessor. 

5. — "  Alwold."     Not  identified  on  our  Lincoln  coins. 
6.  —  "  Britric."    "  BEIHTEIE,"  moneyer  of  the  Confessor. 
7._«  Gnret."     "  6IEE[T],"  moneyer  of  the  Confessor. 
8._"  Vlbert."     ?  "  PVLBEN,"  moneyer  of  the  Confessor. 

9._"  Godric,  son  of  Eddeva."  "  GODEIE,"  moneyer  of 
the  Confessor. 

10. — "  Siward,  a  priest."     Not  identified. 

11.— "Lewine,  a  priest."  ?  "LEFPINE,"  moneyer  of 
the  Confessor.  As  to  a  cleric  holding  this  position, 
see  below  and  page  369. 

12. — "  Aldene,  a  priest."     Not  identified. 
Now,  in  1086,  they  are — 

]. — "  Svardinc,  in  place  of  his  father,  Hardecnut."  Not 
identified. 

2. — "  Svartinc  "  [son  of  Grimbold].  Not  identified  on 
William's  coins. 

3. — "  Sortebrand,  in  place  of  his  father,  Vlf."  Not 
identified. 

4. — "  Agemund,  in  place  of  his  father,  Walraven." 
"  AHEMVND,"  moneyer  of  William  I. 

5.—"  Alwold."     Not  identified. 

6. — "  Godwine,"  sen  of  Britric.  "  60DPINE,"  moneyer 
of  William  I. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  T.       265 

7. — "  Norman  '  crassus  '  in  the  place  of  Guret."  Not 
identified. 

8._"  Vlbert,  brother  of  Vlf,  still  lives."  Not  identified, 
but  "  VLF  "  moneyer  of  William  I. 

9. — "  Peter  de  Valonges  in  the  place  of  Godric  fitz  Ed- 
deva."  "  PIKES,"  moneyer  of  William  I  [the  sons  of 
Peter  de  Valonges  took  the  name  of  Fitz-Piers]. 

10.—"  Vlfnoth,  a  priest,  in  the  place  of  Siward."  "  PVL- 
NOD,"  moneyer  of  William  II. 

11. — "Burvolt  in  the  place  of  his  father,  Lewine,  who 
now  is  a  monk."  Not  identified. 

12. — "  Ledwine,  son  of  Revene,  in  the  place  of  Aldene, 
the  priest."  "  LEFPINE,"  moneyer  of  William  I. 

Thus  we  find  eight  or  nine  names  on  the  Lincoln  coins 
of  the  Confessor  and  four  or  five  on  those  of  the  Conqueror 
which  can  with  every  probability  be  identified  in  the 
respective  lists  of  lagemen  recorded  in  Domesday.  The 
coincidences  are  too  numerous  to  be  accidental,  and  when 
it  is  explained  that  the  notes  of  the  "William  coins  from 
which  this  comparison  is  drawn  are  as  yet  incomplete,  the 
fact  would  appear  to  be  established  that  certain  of  the 
lagemen  held  the  ofiice  of  King's  moneyers  at  Lincoln. 
Mr.  Grueber  has  always  contended  that  the  moneyers 
were  men  of  considerable  status  and  wealth,  and  that  "  the 
right  of  coining  was  farmed  out  to  them  "  (Brit.  Mm. 
Cat.,  II,  civ.).  But  this  identification  must  place  them 
amongst  those  who  were  only  secondary  in  importance  to 
the  territorial  lords  and  proves  that  a  royal  mint — but  a 
royal  mint  only — was  farmed  by  the  King  to  certain  of 
the  principal  freemen  of  the  district,  who  held  it  on  much 
the  same  terms  as  a  lord  held  a  manor.  They  in  turn 
would  either  farm  it  to  the  actual  strikers  of  the  coins  or 
employ  artisans,  as  authorised  by  the  laws  of  Ethelred  II 
(see  page  278),  to  take,  over  the  burden  and  responsibilities 


266  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

of  the  office.  So  we  may  take  it  that  the  mint  of  Lincoln 
was  from  time  to  time  farmed  amongst  certain  of  the 
twelve  tenants  in  capite  of  the  Crown,  just  as  a  city  was 
farmed  to  its  sheriff,  and  they  were  allowed  to  turn  it  to 
the  best  profit  they  could.  Their  names  appeared  on  the 
coins  as  a  voucher  for  their  quality,  but,  as  in  the  case  of 
a  sheriff,  a  fine  was  no  doubt  the  extent  of  their  liability, 
for  their  underlings  would  bear  the  penalty  of  fraud. 
There  was  therefore  no  objection  to  either  a  priest  or  a 
baron  accepting  the  office.  Peter  de  Yalonges  was  a 
sheriff  and  probably  all  the  lagemen  were  of  nearly  equal 
rank,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  human  nature  was 
much  the  same,  even  in  those  days,  and  the  title  monetarius 
would  only  be  assumed  by  those  who  held  no  higher 
position  in  their  own  right. 

Arguing  in  a  circle,  we  will  now  prove  that  a  King's 
moneyer  must  have  been  in  a  position  equal  to  that  of 
Peter  de  Valonges  and  his  brother  lagemen  of  Lincoln. 
How  otherwise  could  God  wine,  King  William's  moneyer  of 
London,  grant  to  Malmesbury  Abbey  in  1084  the  Church 
of  St.  Nicholas,  with  lands  which  he  and  Theodric  the 
moneyer  held  (the  "  GODPINE  "  and  "DIDKIE"  on  our 
coins,  see  page  280) ;  or  Wulfric  of  Sudbury  (see  page 
413),  whom  Henry  I  calls  "  my  moneyer,"  grant  the 
Church  of  St.  Bartholomew  at  Sudbury  to  Westminster 
Abbey;  or  Geldewine  ("  6ELDEPINE"  on  the  coins),  the 
Confessor's  moneyer  at  Canterbury,  grant  his  house  to 
the  see  of  Rochester  (see  page  382)  ? 

Having  thus  demonstrated  the  great  difference  between 
the  constitution  of  a  King's  mint  and  that  of  the  usual 
and  intermittent  baronial  mints  of  lesser  importance,  it 
follows  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  former  class  to 
prevent  a  constant  issue  of  the  currency,  type  after  type. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGX    OF    HEXRY  I.       267 

Hence,  when  we  refer  to  our  coins  of  Lincoln,  issued  duriuo- 
the  reigns  of  the  two  Williams,  we  find  that  from  the 
time  when  the  city  fell  into  the  Norman  King's  hands 
every  type  is  represented  upon  them. 

During  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  similar  conditions 
prevailed,  and  out  of  the  fifteen  types  issued  by  him 
eleven  are  in  evidence  in  our  cabinets.  Those  missing  are 
253  (1104-1106),  256  (1108-1110),  267  and  266  (1112- 
1116).  Perhaps  they  may  yet  be  forthcoming. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  about  the  middle  of  the  reign  an 
attempt  is  made  to  change  the  old  Saxon  name  of  the  city 
from  LINCOLNE  to  NICOLE.  This  attempt  was  not 
confined  to  the  coins  alone,  for  we  find  the  latter  form 
competing  with  its  Saxon  predecessor  in  deeds  and  records 
until  late  in  the  fifteenth  century.  Any  explanation  for 
this  seems  to  have  baffled  the  ingenuity  of  historians  and 
numismatists  alike,  and  the  only  one  suggested  has  been 
that  of  the  difficulty  of  pronunciation  of  the  word,  a 
suggestion  reflecting  unfairly  upon  the  linguistic  powers 
of  our  Norman  forefathers.  There  is  no  effect  without  a 
cause,  and  the  cause  in  this  instance  is  as  simple  as — to 
our  practical  minds — amusing.  A  passage  in  Henry  of 
Huntingdon  ought  to  have  solved  the  problem.  It  is — 

"  In  the  twelfth  year  of  King  Stephen  he  wore  his  crown  during 
Christmas  at  Lincoln,  which  no  [Norman  ?]  King,  from  some 
superstitious  feeling,  had  before  ventured  to  do.  This  showed 
the  great  resolution  of  King  Stephen,  and  how  little  importance 
he  attached  to  such  superstitions." 

To  hold  the  King's  Court  at  a  city  was  naturally  a 
great  benefit  to  it,  and  so  it  was  a  hardship  upon  Lincoln 
that  it  was  debarred  from  the  honour  and  profit  of  such  an 
occasion.  Even  Huntingdon  refrains  from  offering  any 
explanation,  for,  to  him,  it  was  no  doubt  obvious,  but  wheu 


268  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE 

we  find  the  Norman  Kings  refusing  to  visit  the  city  and 
at  the  same  time  the  citizens  themselves,  through  their 
moneyers,  endeavouring  to  change  its  name,  suspicion  falls 
on  the  name  itself.  No  wonder  the  superstitious  Norman 
objected  to  wear  his  crown  in  the  city  which  in  his  own 
tongue  was  Linceul — the  shroud  of  death. 

Turning  to  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  we  notice  several  items 
of  interest.     "  Gerard  de  Grimsby  "  (who  is  styled  mone- 
tarius  in  the  1156  Roll,  and  may  possibly  have  come  from 
Bristol,  see  p.  126)  and  "  Godric  de  Grimsby,"   "  Gerard 
de  Limber "  and  (under  Rutland,  probably  because   of 
their  possessions  in  that  county)  "Elwi  and  Shipman," 
are  mentioned  as  having  to  account  for  certain  fees  on  a 
treasury  plea.    They  were  probably  the  royal  moneyers  of 
the  city  or  those  responsible  for  the  Jinna  of  its  mint :  G  od- 
ric's  name  appears  on  type  262  (1128-1131),  andElwi's  on 
type  255  (1131-1135).    Siwat  de  Holland,  who  is  fined  on 
a  plea  of  false  coining,  is  no  doubt  the  SPET  whose  name 
is   on   types   265   and  262  (1126-1131),  but  then,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  disappears.     In  the   case   of  Osbertus 
Palmarius,   who   "accounts   for    15    marks  of  silver   for 
Toch,  the  false   coiner  who    absconded,"    we   have   also 
ample  grounds  for  identification.     The  former  is  clearly 
the  OSBEKTVS  who  coined  on  type  255  (1131-1135),  and 
therefore  he  must  have  succeeded  Tocb,  whose  name  TOE 
disappears  with   type  IV  (1121-1123).      Toch  would  be 
one  of  the  "  94  "  moneyers  who  were  summoned  to  Win- 
chester for  the  Great  Inquisition  of  Christmas,  1125  (see 
p.  81),  but  he— perhaps  wisely — fled.     He  would  be  fined 
and  outlawed,  and  so  in  1129-30  his  office  was  probably 
purchased  by  Osbertus  at  the  price  of  his  outstanding  fine 
of  20  marks  of  silver.     Hence,  in   the   following   year, 
Osbertus  commences  his  coinage  with  the  new  type. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      269 

That  the  mint  maintained  its  royal  character  in  1157  is 
proved  by  the  entry  in  the  Pipe  Roll  for  that  year :  "  the 
moneyers  of  Lincoln  account  for  £220,"  an  enormous 
amount  at  that  time.  It  was  continued  until  the  reign 
of  Edward  II,  perhaps  even  later,  and  its  actual  site  was 
probably  near  the  New  Port  Gate,  where  some  ancient 
remains  are  still  known  as  "  the  Mint  Wall  "  (see  under 
London,  the  reasons  for  believing  that  the  royal  mints 
were  stationed  at  the  gates  of  the  City,  p.  278). 

COINS. 

.&AH6EMVN)  ON  LIN  .frHNEIEVS  El      251 

T.  Bliss.  From  the  Walpole-White  and 
Montagu,  1897,  collections,  and  perhaps  the 
Warren  Sale,  1869,  described  as  "  found 
at  Ixworth."  As  to  this  money er,  see  before. 

*^LWI  :  ON :  NIEOLE  *riENEIEVS          255 

Royal  Mint ;  Sheriff  Mackenzie. 

.J.ELWI  :  ON tiEN  .  .  .  VS          255 

Watford  find.   As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 
ft 
.f.[AE]EIL  ON  LIN  .  HENEI EEX        251 

Bodleian  Library.  As  to  this  moneyer,  see 
before. 

*  .  AML  ON  LINEOL  252 

Webb  Sale,  1895.     Probably  an  error  for  Arcil. 

...  El .  ON  LINE  .  IxENEIE  EEX    263 

J.  Murdoch.  From  the  Marsham,  1888,  and 
Montagu,  1896,  Sales. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  N  N 


270  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


*ARN[E]I[L]  0[N  N]IC[OL]E     *I\EN  .....      255 

Watford  find.  Arcil  and  Arncil  were  indif- 
ferently used  on  Saxon  coins. 

.frAENCI  ON  NICOLE  :  ^.IiEN  .....  255 

Captain  R.  J.  H.  Douglas.  Captain  Douglas 
has,  for  many  years,  assisted  this  work  by 
furnishing  readings  of  coins. 

4.ASLADE  ON  :  NIEOL  :  .frhENEIEVS          255 

Specimens,  Dr.  M.  Perry,  J.  Verity.  Aslade 
continued  to  coin  in  Stephen's  reign. 

^ASLAED  :  ON  :  NIGOL  ^hENEIEVS          256 

Specimens,  Watford  find  3  ;  L.  A.  Lawrence  ; 
W.  J.  Andrew.  As  to  the  6  see  p.  97. 

*BEVMAN  ON  LIN  ^HENEI  REX  AN     251 

Christmas  Sale,  1864,  £3  5s. 

•frBEVNMAN  :  ON  [LI]NE  ^hENEIEVS          256 

British  Museum.  This  moneyer  was  probably 
a  son  of  the  above. 

.frBEVNMAN  ON  ...  *  .  .  EIEVS  256 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  Eoyal  Mint  col- 
lection. 

•i-EDMVND  :  ON  :  LIN  *hENEIEVS  E      255 

Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  22,  and 
Snelling,  L,  24.  An  Edmund  coined  here 
for  the  Confessor. 

4-60DEIE  ON  LINE  .frHENEI  El  254 

B.  Roth.  From  the  Brice  and  Montagu,  1896, 
£4  15s.  Od.,  collections. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      271 

*60DE[IE  0]N  NIEOL  :  *IxE  .  .  IEVS  .  .     264 


British  Museum.  From  the  Bergne,  1873, 
£3  8s.,  Simpson-Rostron,  1892,  £8,  and 
Montagu,  1896,  £2  18s.,  Sales. 


[*GOD]RIEVS  ON  .J.LIEOLEN  :     ____  EE  IAS 

British  Museum.  Fig.  E,  p.  76.  PI.  VI, 
No.  2.  Engraved,  Rud.  Sup.  ii.,  2.  12. 
From  the  Eoberts  collection.  Obverse, 
two  quatrefoils  before  the  sceptre.  The 
moneyer's  name  is  far  from  distinct. 

4.6[ODEIEJ  0[N]  *N[IEOL]E:        ......  283 


British  Museum.  A  halfpenny.  PI.  VI,  No.  9. 
The  letters  within  the  brackets  are  merely 
conjectural. 


*60DEI[E]  ON  NIEOL        .  .  .  NEIEVS  E  263 

Watford  find.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

4.GODEIEVS  .  N  NIEOL  .frhENEIEVS         286 

J.   Verity.    Probably   from   the  Borrell  Sale, 
1848,  though  then  read  "  Henricus." 

*LEFEIE  [ON]  NICOLE  :          .frhENEIE  .  .          265 
P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 


aar 


Bari  find.  The  description  is  .frNVhEED  ON 
I  A,  but  we  have  the  curious  name  VHEED 
on  a  Lincoln  coin  of  Canute.  See  the  next 
coin. 


272  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

O]NV[fxE]RDO[>]NLIN 258 

Sir  John  Evans.  PI.  VI,  No.  6.  Obverse,  two 
quatrefoils  before  the  sceptre.  The  letters 
in  brackets  are,  of  course,  unreliable. 

^.OSBERTVS  ON  LIN  255 

Cotton  Sale,  1889.  As  to  this  moneyer,  see 
before.  A  Richard  Fitz  Osbert,  probably 
his  son,  held  a  fief  from  Earl  Bigod  in  1165. 

•frOSBERTVS  ON:  LII  .J-IiENRIE  :     255 

Lincoln  and  Son.     An  unusual  obv.  legend. 

*OSBIRI\T  ON  LIN  255 

Belt  Sale,  1892  (corrected). 

•frRIEARD  ON  LINE  ^HENRI  REX  A      251 

Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  2.  Corrected, 
but  the  Lombardic  ft  on  the  obverse  and 
the  colon  on  the  reverse  prove  the  engraver's 
reading  to  be  unreliable. 

ON  LINEOLN  265 

The  Christmas,  1864, and  "Lady  in  the  North," 
1873,  Sales.  As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 


•frSPET  ON  NIE  .  .  .  .  ENEIEVS  262 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 

*,[SPE]T  :  ON  :  NI[EO]LE  *  .  EN  ...  V  .        262 

A.   A.   Banes.     Obverse,  a  larger  head  than 
usual. 

•J.TOE  ON  LIEOLEN  :         * hENEIE VS  EEX  AN    IV 
Major    H.    W.    Morrieson.      Some    previous 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      273 

owner  has  attempted  to  alter  TOE  into  TOMAS. 
As  to  this  moneyer,see  before.  Major  Morrieson 
has  contributed  many  readings  to  these  lists. 

The  similarities  of  the  names  LIN  to  LVN  and 
NIEOLE  to  EOLE  (Colchester)  have  caused 
much  confusion  in  catalogue  attributions. 


LONDON  AND  SOUTHWARK. 

LUNDENCEASTEK,      LuNDENE,       LuDENE,      LtJNDONIUM,     LUNDONE, 

LUNDINIUM  ;  Domesday,  LUNDONIA  ;  Pipe  Roll,  LONDONIA. 

SUTHGEWEBE,    SlJTHWERCHA,    SuDOVERCA  J      Domesday,    StJDWER- 

CHE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  SVDWERCHA. 

In  the  days  when  our  history  was  without  form  and 
void,  the  earthworks  of  London  already  enclosed  a 
Celtic  city.  The  lines  of  these  fortifications  were  to 
some  extent  adopted  by  the  Roman  conquerors  for  their 
walls,  and  thus  from  time  immemorial  the  site  of  the  City 
of  London  has  never  been  varied.  Tacitus  speaks  of 
London  in  the  days  of  Nero  in  much  the  same  terms  as 
we  describe  it  to-day,  viz.,  as  the  chief  resort  of  merchants 
and  a  great  concourse  of  trade.  To  the  holy  Bede  it  was 
"a  princely  mart  town,"  and  when  Ethelbert  of  Kent 
founded  the  ancient  church  of  St.  Paul  the  city  was  even 
then  "  the  emporium  of  a  vast  number  of  nations  who 
resorted  thither  by  sea  and  by  land."  In  the  ninth  century 
it  was  more  than  once  devastated  by  the  Danes,  but  King 
Alfred  "  honourably  rebuilt  the  city  and  made  it  again 
habitable,"  and  afterwards,  in  the  words  of  the  Saxon 
Chronicler,  "  oft  they  fought  against  the  City  of  London, 
but  praise  be  to  God  that  it  yet  stands  sound ;  and  they 
there  ever  met  with  ill  fare." 


274  KUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — It  is  curious  that  the  survey  of 
London  is  entirely  omitted  from  the  Roll.  Possibly 
some  similar  record  was  already  in  existence  which 
formed  the  model  for  the  general  inquisition,  but 
which,  being  separate,  has  been  lost.  If  one  may 
venture  an  opinion  on  so  hypothetical  a  subject,  it  is, 
that  the  returns  for  London,  though  containing  larger 
figures,  would  have  been  very  similar  in  their  details 
to  those  of  Lincoln. 

Southwark. — King  Edward  held  South wark  to  the 
day  of  his  death.  Whosoever  held  the  church  held  it 
of  the  King.  Of  the  harbour  dues  the  King  had  two 
parts  and  Earl  Godwin  the  third.  The  men  of  the 
Hundred,  both  Normans  and  English,  testify  that  the 
Bishop  of  Bayeux  might  have  entered  a  plea  with 
Eanulf  the  Sheriff  concerning  these.  But  he,  un- 
derstanding that  the  plea  did  not  lend  itself  favour- 
ably to  the  judgment  of  the  King,  dropped  it.  He 
has  a  monastery  and  a  wharf.  But  he  gave  the 
church  and  the  wharf,  first  to  Adelold,  and,  since, 
to  Radulf  in  exchange  for  a  house  [?  his  episcopal 
palace].  The  Sheriff,  however,  denied  that  he  had 
ever  received  the  King's  confirmation  or  seal  in  this 
business.  The  men  of  Southwark  testify  that  in  the 
time  of  King  Edward  no  one  took  toll  either  on  the 
strand  or  on  the  river-bank — except  the  King.  What 
the  King  has  in  Southwark  is  valued  at  £16. 

1100.  August.     Henry  is  elected  King  at  London  and 
crowned  at  Westminster,  when  he  grants  his  coronation 
charter.     (Wendover.) 

Ranulf,  Bishop  of  Durham,  is  committed  to  the 
Tower,  its  earliest  state  prisoner.  (Orderic.) 

1101.  The  romantic  escape  of  Bishop  Ranulf.     (Orderic.) 

1106.  Southwark. — An  order  of  canons  is  established  at 
St.    Mary  Overies    [i.e.,  over    ree  —  river].      (West- 
minster.) 

1107.  Death  of  Maurice,  Bishop  of  London. 

1108.  Richard  de  Beaumais   is  consecrated  Bishop  "  at 
his  chapel  at  Peckham."    (Florence.)    "  He  zealously 
exerted  himself  in  the  construction  of  the  new  cathe- 
dral which  had  been  commenced  by  his  predecessor, 
and  he  nearly  completed  the  work."     (Orderic.) 

1109.  Envoys  "  of  great  stature"  attend  Henry's  Whit- 
suntide Court  at  London  to  negotiate  the  future  mar- 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       275 

riage  of  the  Princess  Matilda  with  their  Emperor, 
Henry  V.  of  Germany.  (Huntingdon.) 

1114.  October  10.  The  Thames  is  fordable  "  between 
the  bridge  and  the  Royal  Tower,  even  under  the 
bridge."  (Florence.  This  was  the  old  wooden  bridge 
which  preceded  the  stone  structure,  commenced  in 
1176.) 

1118.  Matilda,  Queen  of  England,  died  at  Westminster 
on  the  1st  of  May,  and  was  interred  with  due  cere- 
mony in  that  monastery.  (Florence.) 

1123.  The  church  of  St.  Bartholomew,  Smithfield,  is 
founded  "  in  the  suburbs  of  London."  (Westminster.) 

1127.  January  1.    The  first  oath  of  fealty  to  the  Empress 
Matilda,  as  successor  to  the  crown,  is  sworn  by  the 
barons  at  the  London  court.   (Continuator  of  Florence.) 

1128.  Death  of  Bishop  Richard. 

1129.  Januar)7  22.     Gilbert  "the  Universal"  is  conse- 
crated Bishop.     (Continuator  of  Florence.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— London.— Fulchred  Fitz  Walter 
accounts,  apparently  as  a  former  sheriff,  for  the  arrears 
of  the  previous  year's  firma.     But  now  four  sheriffs 
account   for   the  firma,  which,    including   payments, 
amounts  to  £536  10s.  lO^d.,  but  as  the  accounts  are 
in  payments,  partly  by  number  and  partly  blanched, 
it  was  probably  800  marks  =  £533  6s.  8d.      These 
paym^jts  include  the  cost  of  the  Tower  garrison,  of 
the  obsequies  at  Queen  Matilda's  tomb,  of  building 
two  arches  to  London  Bridge,  of  work  at  the  Tower 
(probably  construction  of  the  curtain  wall),  of  repairs 
to  the   houses   which   were  Otver's  and  the  chapel, 
and  an  allowance  of  "  £3  Os.  lOd.  to  the  aurifabri  of 
London  for  charcoal."     The  tolls  of  the  market  and 
the  guild  of  the  cloth  weavers  are  mentioned.     The 
references  to  William  Fitz  Otho,  aurifaber,  and  Wyzo 
Fitz  Leofstan,  have  already  been  given  on  pages  40 
and  87.     "  Godwin  Quachehand  owes  four  marks  of 
gold  that  he  might  have  peace  from  a  monetary  plea." 
"  Algar  and  Spracheling  owe  ten  marks  of  silver  for  a 
conviction  of  false  pennies."     "  The  men  of  London 
account  for  100  marks  of  silver  that  they  may  have  a 
sheriff  of  their  own  election." 

Southwark.— The  burg  pays  7s.  6d.,  14s.  2d.,  and 
£1  4s.  in  auxilium. 

1132.  "On  the  llth  of  April  the  City  of  London  was 
almost  entirely  destroyed  by  fire."  (Westminster.) 


276  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1135.  "The  Church  of  St.  Paul  was  burnt  by  a  fire 
which  began  at  London  Bridge  and  extended  as  far  as 
the  Church  of  the  Danes."  (Westminster.  Possibly 
a  repetition  of  the  previous  record.) 

The  mint  of  London  may  claim  to  be  the  oldest  existing 
public  institution  of  any  description  in  the  Kingdom.  Its 
origin  dates  from  the  introduction  of  coinage  into  this 
country  when  the  government  itself  was  still  under  tribal 
divisions.  It  was  in  operation  under  the  Romans,  and 
from  their  day  to  this,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few 
intermittent  periods,  whenever  money  has  been  issued  in 
England  it  has  provided  its  share  of  the  output,  and  of 
late  years  has  supplied  the  whole  demand. 

For  more  than  two  thousand  years  its  moneyers  have 
practised  their  art  within  a  comparatively  few  yards  of 
its  present  site,  and,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  flint 
workers  of  Brandon,  whose  occupation  has  survived  from 
neolithic  times,  they  thus  carry  on  the  oldest-established 
business  in  England.  During  the  whole  of  this  long 
period  of  time  the  Mint  of  London  has  always  remained  a 
royal  mint,  and  it  was  not  until  the  year  1869  that  the 
office  of  Master — or  Moneyer — of  the  Mint  was  merged  in 
that  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  That  it  was  a 
royal  mint  and  under  the  immediate  control  of  the 
Sovereign  is  hardly  needful  of  proof,  but  in  the  absence 
of  any  evidence  in  Domesdaj7  it  may  be  pointed  out  that 
all  the  charters  of  Henry  II,  Richard  I,  John  and 
Henry  III  confirming  the  City  of  London  to  the  citizens, 
excepted  from  the  privilege  that  no  citizen  should  be 
required  to  plead  without  the  walls  of  the  City  "my 
moneyers  and  officers."  From  the  first  coinage  of  William 
the  Conqueror  to  the  last  coinage  of  Henry  I  no  tj'pe  is 
absent  from  our  series  of  the  London  mint. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       277 

The  mint  of  Southwark,  however,  was  not  established 
until  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  and  was  only  continued 
to  that  of  Stephen,  although  revived  for  a  short  period 
under  the  Tudors.  It  was  also  a  royal  mint,  and  it  is 
possible  that  the  ancient  privileges  of  freedom  from  arrest 
within  its  precincts,  which  were  not  finally  abolished 
until  the  Act  of  1  George  IV,  were  a  survival  of  that 
status.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  two  mints  of  London 
and  Southwark  are  here,  for  the  first  time,  classed  together 
under  one  heading,  and  the  reason  for  it  is,  that  they  were 
worked  together  jointly  by  the  same  royal  moneyers  and 
under  one  administration  ;  for  the  mint  of  Southwark 
was  an  appendage  to  the  mint  of  London.  It  is  curious 
that^no  one  seems  to  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
all  the  names — and  they  are  Legion — of  the  Southwark 
moneyers  of  every  reign  during  its  existence  appear  on 
the  contemporary  coins  of  London.  If,  indeed,  there  are 
any  exceptions  to  this  rule,  the  answer  must  be  that  our 
coinage  to-day  is  not  necessarily  complete  so  far  as  all  the 
names  of  the  London  moneyers  are  concerned.  But,  as 
the  London  series  of  types  is  usually  an  almost  complete 
series,  and  much  more  so  than  that  of  Southwark,  it 
follows  that  coinage  at  the  latter  place  was  of  minor 
importance. 

Ethelred  II,  who  seems  to  have  originated  and  appended 
the  Southwark  mint  to  London,  probably  did  so  at  the 
same  time  that  he  proclaimed  certain  laws  which  had  for 
their  object  the  benefit  of  the  Londoners  by  a  betterment 
of  the  coinage.  They  are  headed  De  Inatitutis  Lundonie, 
and  are  given  with  the  various  readings  in  The  Ancient 
Laws  and  Institutions  of  England,  Ed.  Thorpe,  1840. 
These  laws,  to  which  my  attention  has  been  drawn  by 
Mr.  Frederick  Spicer,  have  been  handed  down  to  us 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  O  O 


278  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

in,  unfortunately,  a  very  corrupt  and  disjointed  form.  They 
are  addressed  to  the  King's  Officers  of  the  City  Gates,  and 
concern  the  regulations  to  be  observed  at  the  gates — in 
particular,  at  Aldersgate,  Cripplesgate,  and  Billingsgate. 
There  are  several  copies  extant  in  their  entirety  of  these 
"  Institutes,"  but  as  Bromton,  who  is  followed  by  Ruding, 
vol.  i.  p.  133,  includes  some  of  the  paragraphs  in  the 
general  ordinances  decreed  at  Wantage, omitting, however, 
all  the  special  references  to  London,  it  is  quite  possible 
that  such  clauses  were  then  re-enacted  in  the  public  laws 
for  the  country.  But  the  remaining  authorities  are 
headed  and  addressed  as  above,  and  when  the  word  portus, 
which  seems  to  be  used  indifferently  with  poria  throughout, 
is  given  its  twelfth-century  meaning  of  a  city  gate — see 
Du  Cange — just  as  we,  conversely,  find  gate  used  for 
port  in  Ramsgate,  &c.,  the  whole  reads  intelligibly  and 
throws  new  light  on  the  then  system  of  a  royal  mint. 
The  Institutes  provide  for  the  punishment  of  those  who 
forged,  circulated,  or  connived  at  impure  money,  or  who 
tested  (and  so  injured)  good  money,  and  thpy  hold  the 
Officers  of  the  Gates,  ipsi  qui portus  custodiunt  (in  which  the 
money  was  coined),  responsible  for  its  weight  and  quality. 
But  the  most  important  clause  provides  that  there  should 
be  three  moneyers  in  each  of  the  principal  gates,  in  omni 
summo  portu,  and  one  in  each  of  the  others,  who  might 
have  subordinates  under  them.  The  gates  at  that  time 
were  no  doubt  the  principal  public  or  royal  buildings 
in  the  city,  and  the  three  referred  to  above  were  probably 
the  principal  gates,  so,  by  adding  one  each  for  Aldgate, 
Ludgate,  and  Dowgate,  there  would  be  twelve  moneyers 
at  London,  which  agrees  very  fairly  with  the  apparent 
number  of  moneyers  upon  our  London  coins  of  Ethelred  II 
and  his  immediate  successor.  The  institution  of  royal 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.      279 

moneyers  in  the  gates  of  a  city  was  not  only  convenient  as 
providing  places  of  exchange  for  the  merchants  on  entering 
it,  but  it  brought  the  moneyers  under  the  direct  super- 
vision of  the  King's  officer  in  charge  of  the  defence  of  the 
walls — the  later  castellan  of  Norman  times — who,  unless 
he  could  clear  himself  "  by  oath  or  the  triple  ordeal,"  was 
to  be  held  responsible  equally  with  the  money er  for  the 
purity  of  the  coinage.  Under  Nottingham  and  Oxford, 
for  instance,  we  shall  see  that  moneyers  were  referred  to 
as  "de  porta  "  or  "  juxta  murum,"  and  when  cities  and 
towns  were  mainly  defended  by  earthen  ramparts,  the 
gates,  no  doubt,  served  for  all  public  or  royal  purposes — 

"  ifnto  the  elders  of  the  city  in  the  gate." — Deut.  22,  15. 

Turning  to  Domesday  we  find  that  the  Kingf  through 
his  sheriff,  claimed  the  town  of  Southwark  as  a  royal 
demesne,  and  such  it  remained  until  Edward  III  farmed 
"  the  village  of  Southwark  to  the  citizens  of  London 
at  the  same  firma  as  was  theretofore  accustomed  to  be 
paid  by  it"  (Charters  of  the  City  of  London,  1738,  p. 
36).  If  the  Southwark  mint  was  appended  to  London, 
as  there  can  be  no  doubt  it  was,  it  follows  that  its  firma 
would  be  included  in  the  London  returns,  and  not  under 
Southwark,  in  the  Domesday  Survey.  Hence  the  mint  is 
not  mentioned.  There  is  nothing  unusual  in  this,  for,  as 
explained  on  pages  160-162,  the  JVlaldon  mint  was  simi- 
larly appendant  to  that  of  Colchester,  and  therefore  its 
firma  is  only  mentioned  under  the  latter  heading,  for 
it  was  paid  by  the  Colchester  moneyers,  and  when  no' 
in  use  a  proportionate  reduction  was  allowed  in  their 
firma.  This  explains  the  intermittent  character  of  the 
series  of  Norman  types  issued  at  both  Maldon  and 
Southwark. 


280  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

As  London  and  Southwark  were  royal  mints,  it  follows 
that  the  moneyers  were  tenants  in  capite  of  the  King,  and 
equal  in  status  to  those  already  described  of  the  royal 
mint  at  Lincoln.  Before  passing  on  to  the  coinage  of 
Henry  I,  one  or  two  examples  in  support  of  this  conten- 
tion may  be  taken  from  the  coins  of  William  I  and  II. 
The  names  of  the  moneyers  Godwine,  Theodric,  and 
Ewart,  appear  on  the  coins  of  London  as  60DPINE, 
DIDBIE,  and  EADPART.  From  a  charter,  given  in  the 
Monasticon,  and  dated  1084,  it  appears  that  Godwine  and 
his  wife  Turund  were  the  owners  of  the  advowson  of  the 
Church  of  St.  Nicholas  at  London,  and  that  Theodric 
"  the  moneyer  "  held  a  half  share  in  certain  [?  adjoining] 
land,  which  Ewart  the  Aurifaber  held.  By  the  charter 
the  two  former  granted  the  church  to  Malmesbury  Abbey 
on  condition  that  the  abbot  should  admit  them  into  his 
church  as  [lay]  members,  and  also  pay  £6  on  Godwine's 
behalf  to  Theodric  for  his  share  in  the  land. 

We  will  now  go  a  step  further  and  endeavour  to  con- 
struct at  least  one  pedigree  of  a  family  of  London 
moneyers  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries.  Der- 
man  of  London  holds  half  a  hide  of  land  at  Islington, 
which  land  Algar,  "the  man  [? moneyer  or  officer]  of 
King  Edward  "  held  (Domesday).  Derman  had  there- 
fore succeeded,  and  was  probably  the  son  of  Algar,  and 
both  names  appear  on  the  London  coins  of  the  Confessor, 
viz.,  as  ALDGAR  and  DEORMAN.  In  1086  Derman  must 
have  been  an  old  man,  and  so  his  sons  would  probably 
have  taken  his  place  as  King's  moneyers.  Mr.  Round 
tells  us  in  the  Commune  of  London,  p.  106  : — 

"Tierri  son  of  Deorman  "  [i.e.  Theodric  fitz  Derman,  who 
witnessed  a  charter  of  1137  quoted  in  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville's 
Charter  of  1144,  p.  101]  "  was  the  heir,  perhaps  the  son  of  that 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       281 

'  Derman  of  London  '  who  is  entered  in  Domesday  as  holding 
half  a  hide  at  Islington,  and  the  father  of  Bertram  '  filius  Theo- 
dorici  filii  Derman,'  otherwise  Bertram  '  de  Barwe,'  who  held 
Newington  Barrow  in  Islington." 

Although  Tierri  fitz  Derman  was  the  heir  of  Derman  of 
Islington,  we  shall  see  presently  that  there  must  have  been 
two  generations  between  the  two  Dermans.  The  later  coin- 
cidence of  the  names  Theodoric,  son  of  Derman,  suggests 
that  "Theodric  the  moneyer"  of  the  1084  charter  to 
Malmesbury  Abbey,  referred  to  above,  was  the  eon  of 
Derman  of  Islington,  and  that  Godwine  [de]  Beare 
(Barwe),  one  of  the  witnesses,  was  his  brother.  Theodric 
was  th'en  coming  for  William  I,  and  his  name  also  ap- 
pears on  types  252  (1106-1108)  and  267  (1112-1114)  of 
Henry  I  as  DEODRIE,  and  the  moneyer  GODPINE,  on 
William's  coinymd  on  type  251  (1100-1102)  of  Henry  I, 
was  probably  Godwine  de  Beare.  Between  the  presumable 
death  of  Theodric  in  1114  and  the  first  appearance  of  the 
name  of  the  second  Derman  there  is  a  gap  of  seventeen 
years.  This  is  represented  by  the  father  of  Derman,  whose 
name,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  must  have  been  Richard, 
but  who  does  not  appear  to  have  been  a  moneyer.  On 
type  255  (1131-1135)  the  name  of  DERMAN,  variously 
spelt,  is  one  of  the  most  frequent  moneyers,  and  it  is 
often  followed  by  the  letters  R,  RE,  or  El,  e.g.  "  +DER- 
MAN  :  RI  :  ON  LV."  This,  as  his  son's  coins  will  prove, 
can  only  stand  for  "  Derman  [fitz]  Hi  [card]."  Derman 
continued  to  coin  during  the  first  type  only  of  Stephen's 
reign.  On  the  second  type  of  that  reign  his  son  Tierri's 
name  first  appears,  and  it  is  similarly  followed  by  the 
letter  "  D,"  e.g.  "  +TIERRI :  D  :  ON  :  LVN  "  for  Tierri 
[fitz]  D[erman].  He  continued  to  coin  throughout  the 
reign  and  into  that  of  Henry  II. 


282  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Tierri,  in  his  turn,  is  followed  in  the  reign  of  John  by 
•frWILLQXM  :  T  :  ON  :  LV  (for  William  [fitz]  T[ierri]),  and 
thus  we  have  a  very  simple  explanation  of  the  mysterious 
letters  which  so  frequently  follow  the  names  of  the 
moneyers  in  the  "  short-cross  "  series,  and  which  usually 
correspond  with  the  initials  of  previous  moneyers'  names. 
A  custom  which  seems  to  have  been  introduced  on  type 
255  of  Henry  I.  Surely  no  doubt  can  remain  that 
TIEREI  :  D  '•  on  the  coins  of  Stephen  represented  the 
Tierricus  fitz  Derman  of  London,  who  is  mentioned  in 
the  1130  Pipe  Roll  as  receiving  an  allowance  of  20s.  6d. 
from  the  King's  revenue,  and  the  Tierri  fitz  Derman  who 
witnessed  the  1144  charter  at  London,  and  a  charter  of 
John  fitz  Andrew  in  the  Colchester  cartulary  (Commune 
of  London,  112)? 

As  we  have  seen  that  the  majority,  at  least,  of  the 
lagemen  of  Lincoln  were  royal  moneyers,  so  whenever 
we  find  a  charter  which,  owing  to  its  civic  character,  was 
witnessed  by  the  leading  citizens  of  London,  we  should 
expect  to  find  a  proportion,  at  least,  of  its  witnesses  iden- 
tifiable as  moneyers  on  the  contemporary  coins. 

Several  comparisons  of  this  description  will  be  drawn 
in  the  following  list  of  coins,  and  many  more  would  be 
forthcoming  if  the  enquiry — which  is  a  subject  worthy  of 
separate  research — were  pursued  ;  and  amongst  them  we 
shall  find  some  reason  to  suspect  that  Gilbert  Beket,  the 
father  of  the  famous  archbishop,  at  one  time  held  the 
office  of  royal  moneyer. 

In  1130  the  Pipe  Roll  records  two  entries  concerning 
London  moneyers.  Godwin  Quachehand  owes  four  marks 
of  gold  for  his  pardon  on  a  monetary  plea,  probably  re- 
ferring to  arrears  due  to  the  Crown  of  his  firma  for  the 
mint.  This  is  the  Godwine  of  types  262  and  255  (1128- 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       283 

1135),  for,  having  received  "  his  peace,"  it  would  not  act 
as  a  forfeiture  of  his  office.  Mr.  Verity  has  a  coin  of  his 
reading  4-GODPINE  GV : — probably  in  this  instance  for 
GVAEI\EI\AND,  not  fitz  Guillelm,  which,  if  so,  is  especi- 
ally interesting,  as  not  only  being  an  early  instance  of  a 
contracted  surname,  but  showing  that  the  Saxon  custom 
of  using  6  for  Q  was  still  continued.  This  custom  seems 
to  have  been  maintained  throughout  our  coinage  until 
after  the  reign  of  Henry  III. 

"  Algar  and  Spracheling  owe  ten  marks  of  silver  for  a 
convictidn  of  fa^se  pennies."  In  this  we  have  an  instance 
of  the  punishment  accorded  to  fraudulent  moneyerg — it  is 
only  the  financial  record,  for  the  bodily  penalty  did  not 
concern  the  Exchequer.  It  of  course  operated  as  an 
estopel  of  their  office,  and  although  we  find  both  names 
on  most  of  the  types  from  the  commencement  of  the  reign 
and,  at  this  period,  Algar's  on  types  IV,  258,  265,  and 
262  (1121  to  1129-1131),  and  Spracheling's  (as  SPEE- 
LING)  on  IV  (1121-1123)  and  265  (1126-1128),  they  both 
now  disappear  from  our  regal  coinage.  "Whether  these 
two  moneyers  passed  under  the  hands  of  the  public  exe- 
cutioner and  suffered  the  dreadful  penalty  of  maiming,  as 
probably  they  did,  the  Exchequer  record  does  not  tell  us  ; 
but  if  they  did,  we  do  know  that  Algar  survived  it.  Some 
years  ago  a  few  ancient  forgeries  were  discovered,  and 
subsequently  passed  into  the  cabinet  of  Mr.  L.  A.  Law- 
rence. They  are  five  in  number,  and  all  from  the  same 
dies — namely,  of  the  obverse  of  Stephen's  first  type  and  of 
the  reverse  of  type  255  (1131-1135).  The  forgeries 
themselves  are  of  copper  thinly  plated  with  silver,  and 
although  no  single  coin  is  readable— perhaps  pur- 
posely so— when  classed  together  the  reverse  legend  is 
*  ALGAE  :  ON  :  LYN.  They  are  the  relics  of  a  loug-for- 


284  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

gotten  story  of  crime,  and  they  picture  the  maimed  and 
disgraced  Algar  taking  advantage  of  the  public  disorder 
upon  the  accession  of  Stephen  to  eke  out  a  miserable 
existence  by  the  last  resort  of  a  fallen  moneyer,  a  resort 
as  debased  as  his  own  forgeries. 

We  now  come  to  a  striking  illustration  of  the  light 
which  the  dumb  records  of  our  coins  may  throw  upon 
controversial  matters  of  history.  Until  Mr.  Round  pub- 
lished Geoffrey  de  Manderille,  the  very  foundation  charter 
of  London's  civic  rights  was  antedated  some  thirty 
years  and  arbitrarily  given  to  the  year  1101  ;  but 
Mr.  Round,  with  his  usual  accurate  reasoning,  finally 
demonstrated  that  it  could  not  have  been  in  existence 
prior  to  the  Pipe  Roll,  and  therefore  its  date  must  have 
been  "  between  1130  and  1135."  We  shall  now  see  that 
its  specific  date  was  in  1130  or  before  Michaelmas  1131. 
The  entry  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  that  year  that  "  the  men  of 
London  account  for  100  marks  of  silver  that  they  may 
have  a  sheriff  of  their  own  election,"  is  not  conclusive,  as 
the  contracted  Latin  form  vie  may  stand  either  in  the 
plural  for  the  four  sheriffs  under  the  old  regime  or  in  the 
singular  for  the  sole  sheriff  allowed  under  the  charter,  but 
in  view  of  the  evidence  forthcoming  from  the  charter 
itself  it  most  likely  represents  the  fee  payable  for  the  new 
charter.  Amongst  the  privileges  it  grants  is  this:  "the 
citizens  shall  not  plead  without  the  walls  upon  any  plea." 
Now  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  effect  of  that  clause  must  have 
operated  to  the  King's  disadvantage  in  some  unforeseen 
manner,  for  when  Henry  II,  Richard,  John  and  Henry  III 
confirm  the  charter  they  are  all  careful  to  add  to  the 
clause  the  exception  of  "  my  moneyers  and  officers."  The 
charter  granted  to  the  citizens  the  right  "  to  hold 
Middlesex  to  farm  for  £300  upon  account  to  them  and 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      285 

their  heirs,  so  that  the  said  citizens  shall  place  as  sheriff 
whom  they  will  of  themselves,  and  shall  place  whomso- 
ever, or  such  one  as  they  will  of  themselves,  for  keeping 
of  the  pleas  of  the  Crown  and  of  the  pleading  of  the  same, 
and  none  other  shall  be  justice  over  the  same  men  of 
London  "  (Charters  of  the  City  of  London).  The  effect 
of  this  was  that,  as  the  sheriff  of  the  citizens  had  the 
same  powers  as  the  former  royal  sheriffs  had,  he  would 
collect  the  firma  of  the  King's  moneyers,  and  yet  all  he 
had  to  pay  to  the  King  was  a  total  annual  rent  of  £300. 
Moreover,  having  paid  their  pleas  to  the  sheriff,  the  King 
could  not  call  on  the  moneyers  to  plead  for  the  firma  of 
their  mint  to  him,  for  as  citizens  of  London  they  could 
not  be  called  upon  to  plead  outside  their  walls.  So, 
as  was  probably  intended,  the  citizens  by  the  charter 
became  possessed  of  their  own  mint.  But  they  were  not 
satisfied  with  the  spirit  of  the  charter,  for  it  could  never 
have  been  intended  to  grant  them  the  royal  mint  of 
Southwark  also — and  yet  they  astutely  availed  themselves 
of  the  letter  of  the  charter  to  secure  to  themselves  the 
profits  of  that  mint  as  well.  We  have  seen  that  the 
Southwark  mint  was  appended  to  that  of  London  and 
farmed  by  the  London  moneyers,  yet  the  King,  if  in- 
deed he  ever  gave  it  a  thought,  would  naturally  pre- 
sume that  as  the  mint  was  outside  the  county  of  Middle- 
sex, its  moneyers  would  necessarily  be  under  his  own 
jurisdiction  and  he  could,  of  course,  call  upon  them  to  plead 
for  their  firma.  But  it  immediately  occurred  to  the 
citizens  that  if  they  closed  the  mint  of  Southwark,  so 
much  the  more  money  would  be  in  demand  from  their 
own  mint  and  its  profits  would  be  correspondingly  in- 
creased. They  had  no  right  to  close  the  mint  but  under 
the  wording  of  their  charter— what  could  the  King  do  ? 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  r  p 


286  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

If  he  called  on  the  Southwark  moneyers  to  plead  why 
they  should  not  pay  their  firma  notwithstanding  that  the 
mint  was  closed,  their  answer  was  that  the  charter 
privileged  them  as  citizens  of  London  only  to  plead  to 
their  own  sheriff  and  within  their  walls.  So,  at  or  before 
Michaelmas,  1131,  the  citizens  closed  the  Southwark 
mint  and  kept  it  closed  until  some  time  in  the  following 
reign  of  Stephen.  If  this  statement  is  correct,  it  follows 
that  the  date  of  the  charter  must  be  either  in  the  current 
year  of  the  Pipe  Roll  (Michaelmas,  1129 — Michaelmas, 
1130),  but  not  yet  in  operation,  or  before  Michaelmas, 
1131,  when  the  Southwark  mint  was  certainly  closed. 
The  evidence  is  strong,  for  up  to  and  including  type  262 
(1128-1131,  Michaelmas)  the  mint  of  Southwark  had 
been  one  of  the  most  prolific  in  the  country.  The  next 
type  is  255  (1131-1135),  of  which  altogether  more  than 
600  specimens  have  been  noted,  or  about  two-thirds  of 
the  total  of  the  known  coins  of  Henry  I,  and  yet  though 
hundreds  are  of  London,  not  a  single  example  bears  the 
name  of  Southwark  !  Moreover,  the  names  of  the  South- 
wark moneyers  who  coined  on  type  262,  with  the  exception 
of  that  of  the  convicted  Algar,  now  appear  at  London 
on  255.  Therefore  we  may  safely  say  that  coinage  at 
Southwark  was  discontinued  during  the  whole  period 
of  issue  of  the  type.  But  that  is  not  all ;  if  the 
citizens  of  London  closed  the  mint  of  Southwark,  it  neces- 
sitated their  making  provision  for  the  necessarily  corres- 
ponding increase  in  the  output  of  their  own  mint,  and 
no  doubt  many  of  them  would  covet  the  emoluments  of 
the  office  of  moneyer,  so  this  is  what  we  find.  In  the 
previous  type  262  (1128-1131)  the  royal  moneyers  of 
London  numbered  eight,  but  now,  in  type  255  (1131-1135) 
including  those  transferred  from  Soutl.wark,  there  are  no 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGX    OF    HENRY  1.      287 

fewer  than  twenty,  which  is  probably  the  exact  limit  in 
number  arranged  by  the  citizens. .  No  wonder  Henry  II 
and  his  successors  excepted  their  own  money ers  and 
officers  [of  the  mint]  from  the  privilege  of  only  having 
"  to  plead  within  the  walls  of  the  city  "  ! 


COINS. 


See  under  Reading,  pages  273-277. 

•HELFPINE  ON  LVND  .frHNRIEVS  REI       251 

Bodleian  Library.  The  IE  =  JE  for  JSlfwine, 
which  name  appears  on  London  coins  from 
the  time  of  Ethelred  II. 

•frlELFPINE  ON  LVN  .J.HNRI  REX  NL     251 

Capt.  B.  J.  H.  Douglas.     PI.  II,  No.  2. 

,frIELFPI>E  ON  LIIN  *HNRI  REX         251 

British  Museum.    From  the  Tyssen  Sale,  1802. 

•J.IELFPINE  0  LVND  ^HNRIEVS  REI     251 

J.  Verity.     From  the  Webb  Sale,  1895. 

•frlELFPINE  0  LVND  *HNRIEVS  REI    251 

British  Museum.  From  the  Bank  of  England 
collection. 


ONjVN)  *  HENRI  REX        264 

L.A.Lawrence.     19  grs.     From  the  Bateman 
Sale,  1893,  and  probably  Whitbourn,  1869, 


288  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

and  Moore,  1858,  Sales  ;  T.  Bearman,  from 
the  Boyne  Sale,  1896,  and  Sale,  March,  1886. 

.J.IELFPINE  0  LVND  *  HENRI  REX        254 

B.  Roth.     From  the  Montagu,  1897,  £3,  and 
Marsham,  1888,  Sales. 

.J.IELFPI1SE  OISLIII  *  HENRI  REI         254 

British  Museum,     fig.  B,  page  45. 

•frlELFPINE  ON.VN)  .frHENRI  REX        253 

L.  A.  Lawrence.     20  grs. 

4.IELFPINE  ON  LVN  *  HENRI  REX       253 

L.  A.  Lawrence.     Probably  from  the  Dymock 
Sale,  1841. 

4.IELFPINE  5N.II  *  HENRI  REX  I     253 

British  Museum.     Probably  from  the  Tyssen 
Sale. 


ON-II  *  HENRI  R  .  .        253 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 

•J.IELFPINE  ON  LV  252 

Sale  at  Edinburgh,  1884. 

^ALFPINE  :  ON  :  SVT  ^IiENRI  REX        256 

Engraved   Snelling,  i.  ,  20.     But  it  may  be  the 
coin  now  read  LEFPINE,  &c. 


A.    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  1.       289 

•J.ALFPINE  ON  LVND  207 

Barifind. 

•frELFPINE  ON  LVNDE  267 

Bari  find. 

•frALFPINE  ON  LVND  :  ifrliENBI  RE  266 

L.  A.  Lawrence.     17  grs.     Found  at  Bedford. 
Fig.  K,.  page  65. 


.....  ON  LVNDO  -frhENRI  EEX       263 

British  Museum.  PL  V,  No.  4.  Engraved 
Snelling,  i.,  18,  and  Ruding,  Sup.,  L,  10; 
but  Bee  page  72.  As  to  the  moneyer,  see 
page  201. 


.  .   FPINE  ON:  LVN  .frhENRI  REX       263 

Engraved  Ruding,  Sup.,  II.,  i.,  7. 

LFP1>E    .  .    ^.LVNDENE         .  .  NR  .  .  258 

J  Murdoch.  PL  VI,  No.  1.  From  the 
Marsham,  1888,  £10  10s.  Od.,  Simpson 
Rostron,  1892,  £8  17s.  6d.,  and  Montagu, 
1896,  £8,  Sales.  Obverse,  two  quatrefoils 
before  the  sceptre.  Reverse,  .J.LVNDENE 
in  the  inner  circle.  To  the  above  pedigree 
the  Wigan  and  Cuff  collections  have  been 
usually  added,  but  Mr.  Cuff  had  only  one 
specimen  of  the  type  and  that  a  Southwark 
coin.  But  as  this  is  identical  with  the  des- 
cription given  by  the  Rev.  R.  F.  Whistler, 
Num.  Chron.  II.,  xiii.,  175,  of  a  coin  from 
the  Battle  find  of  1860,  it  may  be  accepted 
as  the  same.  The  moneyer  has  hitherto  been 
assumed  to  be  [PV]LFPINE,  but  as  "  ON  " 
must  fill  one  of  the  two  blank  segments  of 
space  between  the  outer  ornaments,  there 


290  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

would  be  little  room  for  »i«PV  in  the  other. 
Moreover,  we  do  not  know  that  a  Wulfwine 
coined  between  1121  and  1131,  whereas 
Alfwine's  types  represent  almost  a  complete 
series  of  the  reign. 

.  .  FPI  .  .  *ON  LVND  hENE  258 

British  Museum.  PI.  VI,  No.  3.  Engraved 
Euding,  Sup.  II.,  2,  No.  13  (but  the  H  in 
the  obverse  legend  should  be  h).  From  the 
Roberts,  and,  probably,  Tyssen,  1802,  col- 
lections. Obverse, five  small  annulets  between 
the  head  and  sceptre  and  a  broken  annulet  on 
the  outline  of  the  nose  ;  but  these  are  no 
doubt  disjointed  portions  of  the  usual  quatre- 
foils  artlessly  crammed  in  for  want  of  space. 
Reverse,  ^<ON  LVND  in  the  inner  circle. 


•frALFPINE:    ..   LVND:  *  hENEIEVS  E :     265 

British  Museum.  EngraVed  Hawkins,  265, 
and,  probably,  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  21. 
From  the  Trattle  collection. 


•frALFPINE  :  ON  :  SVDPEE         *I\ENEIEVS  E      262 

Watford  find  ;   Milford  Haven  find ;   N.  Hey- 
wood  ;  Lincoln  and  Son. 


^ALFPINE  ON  LVN  .frhENEIEVS:         255 

Nottingham  Castle,  from  the  Nottingham  find  ; 
Watford  find. 


^ALFPINE  ON  LVND  EVS  255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens.    Alfwine  continued^ 
to  coin  in  Stephen's  reign.  He  was,  perhaps, 
the  Ailwinus  fitz  Eadumf  [Ralph],  citizen  of 
London,  of  1187  (Commune  of  London,  100). 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       291 

.IEEDRRIHL  ON  LVI  254 

Cuff  Sale,  1854,  £2  16s.  Probably  a  misread- 
ing or  blunder  for  ^DEODRIE. 

.  AILEINL  ON  LVN  252 

Beowell  Sale,  1849.     Probably  ALFPINE. 

*  ALGAE  OMTVND  *  HENRI  REX        251 

Spink  and  Son.  The  moneyer  had  coined  at 
South wark  for  Rufus. 

•J.AL6AR  ON  LVNDN  .J.  HNRI  REX  M,     251 

British  Museum.  Fig.  A,  page  42.  Engraved 
Snelling,  i.,  13,  and  Hawkins,  251. 

^ALGAR  ONLVN)  *  HENRI  REX        254 

Spink  and  Son.     PI.  II,  No.  6. 

*  ALGAE  ON  LVND  .  HENRI  RE  254 

Bodleian  Library. 

•fr ALGAE  ON  LVND  :  *I\ENRI  RE  :        252 

Sir  John  Evans;  P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 
PL  III,  No.  1 ;  Fitz-William  Museum,  Cam- 
bridge ;  Allen  Sale,  1898  ;  the  latter  two  are 
from  the  Shillington  find. 

41  ALGAE  ON  L  .  .  DE  ifrliE.E.     ..         252 

L.  A.  Lawrence.     20  grs. 

*  ALGAE  OH.VH  *fiElSEI  REX        267 

L.A.Lawrence.     20$  grs.     PI.  Ill,  No.  7. 

From  the  Allen  Sale,  1898. 


292  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

*AL6I\EE  :  ON  .  LVND  :  267 

Bari  find. 

*  ALGAE  :  ON  :  LVND  .frhENRI  EEX  AN     IV 

L.  A.  Lawrence,  18|  grs.;  W.  J.  Andrew ; 
J.  Young,  Leicester;  Wakeford  Sale,  1879. 

*  ALGAE  ON  SVTPVE  I\EN  .  .  258 

Montagu  Sale,  1896,  £8  5s.  From  the  Cuff, 
1851,  £5  2s.  6d.,  Wigan,  Neck  and  Webb, 
1894,  £9,  collections.  Found  at  St.  Albans. 
Obverse,  between  the  head  and  sceptre  four 
annulets  joined,  no  doubt  representing  one  of 
the  quatrefoils.  Sketched  by  Mr.  Cuff  in 
his,  now  Mr.  Webster's,  copy  of  Ruding. 

.fr ALGAE  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :  *I\ENEIEVS  E      265 

J.  Murdoch.      PI.  VI,  No.  11.     Probably  the 
coin  engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  19. 

*  ALGAE  :  ON  •  LVNDE  ^hENEIEVS  E  :    265 

Bodleian  Library. 

*  ALGAE  ON  LVNDENE:  *hENEIEVS  E      262 

Watford  find.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

*  ALGAE  ON  LVNDEN:  ^.hENEIEVS  E     262 

Waliord  find,  8  specimens ;  J.  Verity ;  Wake- 
ford  Sale,  1879,  £2;  Moon  Sale,  1901. 

*  ALGAE  :  ON  LVNDE  .frhENEIEVS  E      262 

Bodleian  Library. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       293 

*AL6A[RON]  SVDPER  *hENRIEVS  R       262 

British    Museum.      From  the  Montagu  Sale 
1896,  £5  7s.  6d. 

.f-ALGAR  :  ON  :  SVDPE  :  *hENRIEVS  R     262 

W,  J.  Andrew.     PI.  VII,  No.  1     From  the 

Milferd  Haven  find  ;  Watford  find  ;  Lincoln 
and  Son. 

•J.AL6AR  :  ON  :  SVDPER  :  *hENRIEVS  R      262 

British    Museum  ;    Capt.    R.    J.   H.   Douglas, 
PI.  VII,  No.  7.     P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 

•I.BALDEPIN  :  ON  :  LVN  :         ^.hENRiEvs       255 


Watford  find,  12  specimens  ;  F.  A.  Walters, 
probably  the  Bergne  coin  ;  Lincoln  and  Son. 

[^.BALDJEPIN  :  $N  :  .  .  .  .frhENRI  :  255 

Watford  find.  This  form  of  the  obverse  legend 
would  seem  not  to  occur  on  any  other  coin 
of  this  type.  See  page  96. 

•J.BALDEP1NE  ON  LVN  *hENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  L.  A.  Lawrence, 
probably  from  the  Cureton  Sale,  1859; 
P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton  ;  J.  Verity. 

•frBALDEPINS  ON  :  LVN  :  .frhENRIEVS  :        255 

Watford  find.     A,  H.  Sadd. 

For  other  coins  of  this  moneyer,  see  under 
Reading,  pages  377-78. 

,J,BLAEEM[AN  ONLJVN  *  HENRI  BEX       254 

G.  Dealdn. 
•frBLAEAMAN  OM.V  .frhENRI  RE          252 

W.  J.  Andrew.  PI.  Ill,  No.  2.  This  name 
frequently  occurs  on  Saxon  coins,  but  not  at 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  Q  Q 


294 


NUMISMATIC    CHROXICI,!-:. 

London.  Perhaps  the  family,  like  the 
Smaewines,  came  here  from  Guildford  when 
that  mint  was  discontinued.  JBlacman  Street, 
Southwark,  is  mentioned  in  Edward  VI's 
charter  to  London. 

*B[LA]EAMAN  ON  LV  *hENRI  RE  :         '262 

British  Museum. 


VND          .frhENRI  RE  252 

J.  Verity.     From  the  Allen  Sale,  1898. 


•I.BLAEAMAN  :  ON  •  L  ^.I^ENRI  REX       255 

L.  E.  Bruun  of  Copenhagen. 

•frBLAEAPOAN  ON  LV        *hENRI    .  .  .    ANGL     IV 

British  Museum.  As  to  the  lettering  see 
page  73. 

•frBLAEAMAN  ON  L.  ^hENRIEVS  REX     IV 

Montagu  Sale,  1897. 

•frBLA  .  MAN  :  ON  L  :  ^hENRI  .  .  .   ANGL   IV 

British  Museum. 

•i-BLAEMN  :  ON  LV  .  DE  hEM  .  .  2fi8 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  The  unique  variety  of  this 
type  described  and  illustrated,  Fig.  T,  pages 
82-3. 

.frBLAEhEMAN  :  ON.VN  :      ^IiENRIEVS  RE  :     262 

British  Museum.  Fig.  V,  page  89  ;  Watford 
find.  Engraved  Archceologia,  xxi.,  540. 

•frBLA  ......  :   ON  :  LVN          ^.hENRIEVS  R      2ttt 

G.  Hodges. 


A.    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       295 

.frBRIEhMAE  ON:  LVN  .f-IiENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  8  specimens  ;  J.  Verity ;  A.  H. 
Sadd.  As  to  this  moneyer,  see  under  Tam- 
worth,  page  419. 


ONLV:  ^IxENRIEVS          256 

Watford  find,  2  specimens ;  A.  H.  Sadd. 

MAR  :  ON  :  LVND  *hENRIE  .  .          266 

J.  Verity.     From  the  Boyne  Sale,  1896. 

....  ETMAR  ON  LVN  4-hENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find.  8  specimens.  Brichmar  con- 
tinued to  f-^in  here  in  Stephen's  reign. 

^.BRHTPIN  ON  LV  *HNRI  REX  N     251 

C.  M.  Crompton-Roberts.  From  the  Holmes, 
1890,  and  Nunn,  1896,  Sales.  The  Brihtwins 
had  coined  here  since  Saxon  times. 

•J.BRIHTPI  ON  LVN  261 

Barter  Sale. 


4.BRANT  O  .  LV  .  .  *hENE  ....          252 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.  BIIENT  occurs 
here  in  the  previous  reign. 

4.BEVNIE  ON  LVN  ^.HNEIEV  EE       251 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  PL 
II,  No.  5.  This  moneyer  had  coined  here 
for  the  Williams,  and  the  name  occurs  on 
Saxon  coins. 


296 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


.frLEVNIE  ON  LVN 
Brice  Sale,  1881. 


251 


.  .  .  IE  ON  LVN  252 

Shillington  find,  2  specimens ;  Allen  Sale,  1898. 


•frDEEEMAN  El  :  ON  :  LVN      .frhENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  9  specimens  ;  L.  A.  Lawrence  ; 
Lincoln  and  Son.  As  to  this  moneyer  see 
page  281. 


•J.DEEEMAN  El  ON  LVND  255 

Sale,  January,  1860. 


^DEEEMAN  EE  ON  LVN 
Late  J.  Toplis. 

•J.DEEEMAN  El  ON  LV 
British  Museum. 


•frhENEIEVS  255 


.  .  ENE  .  EVS  : 


255 


*DEEMAN  :  El :  ON  LV  *f\EN  .  IEVS         256 

J.  Verity. 

^DEEEMAN  :  E  ;  ON  LV  *I\ENEIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  British  Museum, 
from  Mr.  Kashleigh ;  F.  A.  Walters. 

^.DEEEMAN  E  :  ON  :  LVN         *I\ENEIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  10  specimens  ;  Royal  Mint  col- 
lection. 


A    NTMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      297 

•fr'DEEEMAN  E  :  ON  :  LV  :  *I\ENEIEV  255 

Royal  Mint  collection. 

•frDEEEMAMl:  ON  :  LVN  ^hENEIEVS  :        255 

W.  tF.  Andrew. 

....  AMAM  :  ON  LV NEIEVS  :  255 

British  Museum. 

*DEEMA>R  :  ON  LVND  .frh  .  .  EIEVS         255 

Watford  find  ;  Nottingham  Castle. 

•frDEEEMAN  :  ON  :  LVN  *I\ENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  13  specimens  ;  Royal  Mint  col- 
lection, 3  specimens;  British  Museum,  from 
the  Banks  collection ;  Spink  and  Son ; 
W.  J.  Andrew.  There  are  numerous  speci- 
mens bearing  this  legend. 

•frDEEEMA  .    ON  LVN  *hENEIEV8  255 

Sir  John  Evans  ;  L.  A.  Lawrence,  21  £  grs. 
From  Lord  Londesborough's  collection. 

4-EDPINE  ON  ^.LVNDEN         hENEI  258 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.     PI.  VIII,  No.  10. 

Obverse,  between  the  head  and  sceptre  two 
quatrefoils.  Reverse,  .frLVNDEN  in  the 
inner  circle.  EDPI  occurs  on  London  coins 
of  the  Williams. 

.frESTMIEE  ON  LVNI  251 

Ferguson  Sale,  1851. 


298  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


•J.EASTMVND  :  ON  LVN  4-IiENRIEVS  265 

Watford  find,  4   specimens ;  Christmas,  1864, 
Boyne,  1896,  Montagu,  1888,  Sales. 


*ESTMVND  ON  LVN  .frhENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  6  specimens.  Estmund  con- 
tinued to  coin  in  Stephen's  reign  and  was 
probably  the  Estmund,  citizen  of  London, 
in  the  1137  charter  (Commune  of  London, 
100).  The  name  occurs  on  the  Confessor's 
coins  of  this  mint. 


4-ESTMVND  ON  LVN)  -frhENRIEVS  R      255 

Watford  find  ;  Pembroke  Sale,  1848,  £8  4s.  Od.; 
Bird  Sale,  1854. 


4-ESTMVND  :  ON  :  LVND  :          *h  .  NRIE  .  .          255 
Royal  Mint  collection  ;  G.  Deakin. 


4.ESTMVN)  :  ON  :  LVN  *hENR  ....          255 

British  Museum.     From  Mr.  Rashleigh. 

*EST  ....    ON  LVN  *hENRIEV  :          255 

J.  Verity. 

4-6ILEBERD  ON  .VN  4-hENRIEVS          251 

Watford  find,  2  specimens.  It  is  very  possible 
that  the  moneyer  was  the  Gilbert  Becket, 
citizen  of  London  and  father  of  the  Arch- 
bishop, mentioned  in  the  1137  charter 
(Commune  of  London,  101). 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       299 

*6IL  .....    ON  .  .  ND  255 

Kennard   Sale,    1892.    Said   to   b«   from  the 
Linton  find. 

*[6OD]  RIE  :  ON  [:  SVDJPE     .frhENR  .....         262 

F.  Spicer.     The   name  constantly   occurs   on 
London  and  Southwark  coins. 

4.60DRIE  :  ON  :  LVNDEN  :         -frhENKIEVS  :        255 
Watford  find,  8  specimens. 

•J.60DRIE  ON  LVND  *T\ENEIEVS  265 

Lincoln  and  Son. 

LVND  256 


Wakeford,  1879,   and  Montagu,   1897,  Sales, 
from  the  Linton  find.     A  halfpenny. 

•J.60DRIE  :  ON  :  LVN  :  .J-hENRIGV  266 

Royal  Mint  collection  ;  Lincoln  and  Son. 

•frGOD  .  .  6  :  ON  :  LVNDE  *  hEN  .  .  .  VS         256 

J.  Verity.     From  the  Allen  Sale,  1898. 

*60DRIE  ON  LVN  ^IiENRGVS  256 

Watford  find.     As  to  the  use  of  6  for  C  refer 
to  page  97. 

•frGODRIEVS  :  ON  :  LVN  ^hENRIEV  :  256 

Watford  find,  3  specimens  ;  Lincoln  and  Son. 
Godric  continued  to  coin  for  Stephen  and 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

the   name   frequently  occurs  on  Saxon  and 
Norman  coins  of  London. 

.fGODPINE  ON  LVN  .J.HNEI  E  AN        251 

Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.  3  ;  and  Ruding, 
Sup.,  i.  2,  2.  Godwine  coined  under  the 
two  Williams,  but  the  name  is  a  common 
one  on  Saxon  coins  of  London  and  else- 
where. 

4.GODPINE  :  ON  :  SVDPE  -frhENRI  EEX        252 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.     From  the  Allen 
Sale,  1898,  and  Shillington  find. 

•frGODPINE  :  ON  :  LVND  ^hENEIEVS  E      262 

W.  C.  Boyd,  20  grs.,  from  the  Milford  Haven 
find.  Mr.  Boyd  supplied  most  of  the  infor- 
mation of  this  hoard.  The  moneyer  was 
probably  son  of  the  above. 

4-60DPINE  :    .  .    LVNDEN     .frhENE  .  .  .  S  EE  :   262 
Watford  find. 

•J.60DPINE     .  .     .  .  NDEN          .  .  .  NBIEVS  255 

Royal  Mint  collection. 

4.GODPINE  6V  :  ON NEIEVS  255 

J.  Verity.  From  the  Allen  Sale,  1898.  As  to 
this  moneyer,  see  page  283. 

[*I\]AMVND  :  ON  :  LVND          .frliENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find.     Hamund  coined  here  for  Stephen. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      301 

•frHEAIAMAN  :  ON  LVN  ?  267 

Bari  find.  Sir  John  Evans  queries  this  reading, 
and  the  form  H  is  evidently  incorrect.  It 
may  represent  BLAEAMAN,  but  a  Huneman, 
citizen  of  London,  witnesses  the  1137  charter 
of  Gedffrey  de  Mandeville  (Commune  of 
London,  101). 

*LIFPINE  ON  SV  .  .  EE  ^hENEIEVS  EE     251 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  Lifwine  coined  also  at 
London  for  Rufus,  and  at  Southwark  for  the 
Conqueror. 

•J.LIFPINE  ON  SVDEP  251 

Warne  Sale,  1889. 

.fLIFPNE     .  .    SVDE  .J.HENEI  EE          254 

British  Museum.      Engraved  Hawkins,  354. 

•frL  .  FPINE  :  ON  :  SVT  .frliENEI  EEX       256 

British  Museum.  PL  III,  No.  5.  Engraved 
(Eeverse)  N.  tf.,x.  p.  21,  No.  9  and  Ruding,  i. 
14.  In  the  latter  instance  the  engraver  has 
erroneously  assumed  the  moneyer's  name 
to  be  SEPINE. 


•frLEFPIN  ON  SYD  :  fcliENHE  EEX      257 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.     PI. 
Ill,  No.  8. 


*[L]EFPINVS  ON  :  SVT  *hENEI  EE          266 

British  Museum. 

4.LEFPINE  ON  SVD  ^.hENEIEVS          264 

British  Museum.     From  the  Marsham,  1888, 
and  Montagu,  1897,  Sales. 

VOL.    1.    FOURTH    SERIES.  R   R 


302  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

*LEPINE  ON  :  SVTP  :          .frliENRIEVS  EEX  :      IV 

AN: 

Spink  and  Son.  PL  V,  No.  9.  From  the 
Whitbonrn,  1869,  £1,  Marsham,  1888,  £6, 
and  Montagu,  1896,  £4,  Sales.  Found  in  the 
Thames. 

.frLEFPINE  O-frN  SVTPVE         I\E1SR  .  .  258 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  PI. 
VI,  No.  8.  Engraved  Ruding,  Sup.  II.  i.  3. 
Obverse,  before  the  sceptre,  two  quatrefoils. 
Reverse,  ^.N  SVTPVR  within  the  inner 
circle. 

^LEFPINE  :  ON  :  SVDPER  :     .frliENRIEVS  R      262 
Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  British  Museum. 

.frLEFPINE  ON  SVD  .  .  ^IiENRIEVS  R      262 

Sir  John  Evans;  Bergne  Sale,  1873,  £4; 
Marsham  Sale,  1888,  £6  5s.  Od. 


:  ON  :  S  .  DFE  :         *  frENRIE  VS  :        262 
Watford  find. 

^LEFWIN  ON  .  LVND  :  ^.IiENRIEV  255 

British  Museum,  2  specimens,  from  Mr. 
Rashleigh.  As  to  the  removal  of  the  South- 
wark  money  ers  to  London  in  1131,  see 
page  286. 


*LEF  ...    ON  LVN  :  *IiE  .....  255 

Lincoln  and  Son. 

CLIFFORD  ON  SVDE  *HNRI  REX          251 

J.    S.    Henderson.     From    the    Blick,    1843, 
Bergne,  1873,  £7  2s.  6d.,  Halliburton-Young, 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      303 

1881,  £5  10s.  Od.,  and  Simpson  Rostron, 
1892,  £7  10s.  Od.,  Sales.  This  moneyer 
coined  for  Rufus. 


.frLEFPABD  ON  SV  *I\E>EIE  EE :       257 

Engraved,  Speed's  Chronicle,  1611,  p.  434; 
Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.  12  ;  Snelling,  i.  21,  and 
Ending,  Sup.,  i.  8.  Sold,  September,  1844, 
£7. 


.frLEFEED  :  ON  LVND  ^hENEIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  6  specimens  ;  British  Museum, 
from  Mr.  Rashleigh.  The  ruoneyer's  name 
occurred  here  in  Saxon  times,  and  this 
moneyer  continued  to  coin  for  Stephen. 


•J.LIFFEED  :  ON  LVND  :  ^IxENEIEVS          255 

Watford  find. 

•frLIEFEED  ON  LVND  :  .frhENEIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  Royal  Mint  col- 
lection. 


OLIF]EED  :  ON  :  LVN          ^RENEIEV         255 

Sir  John  Evans. 

*L1FEED  :  ON   .  .  .  .  B  *hENEIEV  255 

Watford  find. 

ONTETF  ONN  LVN  P  267 

Bari  find.     The  reading  is  queried  by  Sir  John 
Evans. 


304  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

•frORDGAB,  ON  LVN)  *HNEI  REX  N     251 

H.  M.  Reynolds,  21  grs.  From  the  Hender- 
son, 1888,  and  probably  the  Neville-Rolfe, 
1882,  Sales.  The  moneyer  coined  for  Rufus. 


•frORDGAR  ON  LVND  -f-HNRI  REX  N     251 

British  Museum.     See  variety  (B)  page  45. 

.frORDGAR  ON  LVN)  *HNRI  REX  I       251 

Engraved  Ruding  i.  15.     22£  grs. 

•frORDGAR  ON  LVND  .frhENRIEVS  R      265 

J.  HalL 

•frDRDGAR  :  ON  :  LVNDE          .frhENRIEVS  RE     262 

Watford  find.  The  moneyer's  name  is  of 
course  ORD6AR,  as  below,  and  the  fre- 
quency of  similar  blunders  to  this  is  pre- 
sumptive evidence  that  the  die-sinkers  used 
punches  to  form  the  letters  of  the  legends. 
See  DERIEVS  for  EDR1EVS,  page  217. 

*.ORD[GAR]  ON  [LV]ND         *hEN[RI]EVS  R    262 

Watford  find ;  British  Museum ;  Hunterian 
Museum. 

.frORDGAR  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :      .    -frhENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  10  specimens  ;  British  Museum; 
Royal  Mint  collection  ;  Sheriff  Mackenzie  ; 
R.  M.  Reynolds  ;  T.  B.  Winser  ;  J.  Verity  ; 
Montagu  Sale,  1897.  This  is  perhaps 
Ordgar  the  Prude,  citizen  of  London,  whose 
name  occurs  on  several  charters  of  this  date 
(Commune  of  London,  98-106). 


A    M'MISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      305 

.frORDSARVS  ON  LVN)  *riENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  3  specimens;  British  Museum, 
from  Mr.  Rashleigh. 

•frOSEBERN  :  0,N  :  LVN  *  hENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find  ;  British  Museum. 


*OSEB  .....  :  LVN)  *h  .  NR  .  .  VS        255 

W.  J.  Andrew. 


.....    ON  LVNDE  :  *  hENRIEVS          255 

Lincoln  and  Son. 


•J.OSBERN  ON  LVN)  *  hENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  3  specimens. 

•frOSBERD  :  ON  :  LVNDE  *  hENRIEVS          255 

Dartford  find,  4  specimens,  21f  grs. 

4-RAVLFVS  ON  LV  *hENRI  RE          253 

Late  A.  E.  Packe.  A  Ralph  fitz  Algod  was 
a  citizen  of  London  in  1104  (Commune  of 
London,  102). 

4-RAVFVS  :  ON  LVNDE  267 

Bari  find. 

•frRAPVLF  :  ON  LVN  .  hENRIEVS  264 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.     PL  IV,  No.  11. 

*RABVLF  :  ON  ;  LVNDE        *  hENRIEVS  :  R  :     266 

T.  Bliss.  From  the  Cuff,  1854,  £8, 
Dymock,  1858,  Murchison,  1864, 


306  NUMISMATIC   CHKONICLE. 

£7  7s,  Od.,  April,  1873,  Brice   and    Mon- 
tagu, 1886,  £6  2s.  6d.,  collections. 

*EA  .  VLF  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :         *hENEIEVS  E      265 

British  Museum;  Norris  Sale,  1868, 
£3  15s.  Od. 

4-EAPVLF  ON  LVNDEN  :         *hENE  ...SB:    262 

T.  Bliss.  PL  VII,  No,  5.  From  the 
Milford  Haven  find.  Obverse,  a  larger 
bust  than  usual.  As  to  this  moneyer  see 
under  Oxford,  page  856. 

*EAP  ...  ON  LVNDE  :       ^hENEIEVS  :  EEX     262 

Bodleian  Library.  20£  grs.  Engraved 
Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  2,  7.  Only  one  other 
instance  of  this  obverse  legend  occurs  on 
type  262 — namety  on  a  Winchester  coin. 
See  page  465. 


*EA\VLE  0  .    LVNDE  .frhENEIEVS  EE      262 

Watford  find,  2  specimens. 


•J.EAVLF  ON  LVNDE  :  .frhENEIEVS  E     262 

British  Museum.    The  name  occurs  on  London 
coins  of  Stephen. 


•frEAVF  ON  LVN  :  .  hENEIEVS  E  :    262 

Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  9. 


•frEADVLVS  :  0  .    ...  *  hENEIEVS  E  :     262 

J.  Verity, 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       307 

.frROBERD  :  ON  :  L  .  .  *I\EN 255 

Lincoln  and  Son.  The  moneyer  continued  to 
coin  for  Stephen. 

4.  ROGER  ON  EVNDE  ^.hENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  8  specimens.  The  inoneyer 
continued  to  coin  for  Stephen. 

.J.R06IER  :  ON  :  L  .  .  .  .frliENRIEVS  255 

"Watford  find. 

•frROGIR  :  ON  :  LVNDENE  :        -frhENRIEVS          255 

British  Museum,  from  Mr.  Rashleigh;  Royal 
Mint  collection;  late  A.  E.  Packe;  Spink 
and  Son. 

•frSIGAR  ON  LVNDE  *I\ENRI  REX       252 

F.  G.  Lawrence,  20^-  grs. ;  Allen  Sale,  1898, 
2  specimens  from  the  Shillington  find. 

.frSIGAR  ON  LVNDE  *I\ENRI  REX       252 

University  College,  Cambridge.  From  a  cast 
supplied  by  Mr.  Francis  Jenkinson. 

*SIGI\ER  ON  :  LVNDEN  267 

Bari  find. 

•frSIGAR  ON .  LVNDGNE  4<I\ENRIE  RE        266 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 
PL  IV,  No.  7.  Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall 
ii.,  6  ;  Snelling,  i.,  17  ;  Ruding,  ii.,  7. 


308  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

•frSIGAEVS  ON  LVND  .frhENEI  RE  266 

British  Museum.     PI.  IV,  No.  5.     From  the 
Montagu  Sale,  1896,  £6  12s.  6d. 


*SIGAB  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :  .frftENEIEVS  E  :     264 

J.  Murdoch.     PI.  Iy,  No.  9. 

ON  LVND:  ^.hENEI  EEX        263 


British  Museum.    PI.  V,  No.  5  ;  Fig.  N,  p.  70. 
Engraved,  Hawkins,  263. 


....  AE  ON  LVND  .  I\E  .....  X  AN    IV 

L.  A.  Lawrence  ;  Wakeford  Sale,  1879  ;  but 
possibly  ALGAE. 

*SI6AE  .  .  LVND  *fiENE.    ...  A      IV 

British  Museum. 

*SI6AE  ON  :  LVNDEN  .frhENEIEVS  E       265 

British  Museum.  Probably  the  Tyssen, 
1802,  coin. 

*SIGAE  IxENE  D  :  .frliENEIE   ^SIGAE    265 

Montagu  Sale,  1897.  This  curious  legend  is 
merely  the  effect  of  the  planchet  having 
been  twice  struck,  but  turned  over  between 
times. 

.frSIGAE  ON  LVNDEN  :  *  hENEIE  VIS  E    262 

Watford  find,  2  specimens. 

ON  LVNDEN  *I\ENEIEVS  :  E    262 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  British  Museum, 
2  specimens. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      309 

^SMIEPINE  ON  LVN  *HNRIEVS  REX    251 

British  Museum.  The  family  were  Saxon 
money  erg  at  Guildford,  and,  with  that  of 
Blacman,  probably  migrated  to  London  on 
the  discontinuance  of  the  former  mint. 


^.SMIEPINE  ON  LV  *  HENRI  RE  AN.    251 

Bodleian  Library. 

PINS    ..    .  .  NDE  ^I\E1SB 257 

Spink  and  Son.     PI.  Ill,  No.  10.    From  the 
Marsham,  1888,  and  Montagu,  1896,  Sales. 

N  :  ON  :  LVN)E  :  -frhENRIEVS  :        255 

J.  S.  Henderson.  PL  VII,  No.  10.  From 
the  Marsham,  1888,  and  Montagu,  1896, 
£ 6,  Sales.  This  moneyer  continued  to  coin 
for  Stephen  and  was  probably  son  of  the 
above. 

^.SMJEPIN  ON  LVN  *I\ENRIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens;  late  J.  Toplis ; 
Christmas  Sale,  1864. 

4.SMEPINE  ON  LVND  *  IiENRIE  VS  :  R    255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens ;  L.  A.  Lawrence ; 
Taylor  Sale,  1855  ;  Neville-Rolf  Sale,  1882. 

[*S]PIRLI[N6]  ON  LVN  251 

Late  J.  Toplis. 

*SPIRLIN6  ON  LVN  *hENRI  REX:        252 

A.  A.  Banes,  21  grs. ;  E.  T.  Corfield ;  Lincoln 
and  Son  ;  Coventry  Sale,  1884. 

VOT,.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


310  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

.J.SPIELI  .  .  ON  LVN  .  .  ENEI  .  BEX  :      232 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 

•J.SPIELIG  ON  LVND  IV 

Battle  find. 

•J.SP.  .  .  16:  ON  LVN:  .frhENEIEVS  :  .  .  .  :     IV 

J.  Young. 

4.SPEELI6  :  ON-  LVND:  .frhENEIEVS  E       265 

British  Museum. 

^.SPEELIG  ON  :  LVNDE  :  *I\ENEIEVS  E      265 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 

*S  ....  16  ON  LVNDE  *I\ENEIEVS  E      265 

Cotton  Sale,  1889  ;  Nunn  Sale,  1896. 


6  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :     ^IiENEIEVS  E     265 
J.  Murdoch.     As  to  this  moneyer  see  page  283. 

•frSPO[TE]  ON  SVDEPI          ^.IHEIESNIS  EEX     251 

British  Museum.      The  moneyer  coined   here 
for  Eufus  as  SPEOT. 

•J.SVLTA  ON  LVNDE  257 

Bari  find.     The  moneyer  is  probably  SPOTE. 

•frSNOTE  ON  LVNDE  *I\ENEIEVS  E      264 

Preston  Sale,  1891.     The  moneyer  is  probably 
SPOTE. 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGX   OF    HEXRY  I.      311 

*D[EODR]IE  ON  LV[ND]EN      *hENRI  REX    252 

Lincoln   and   Son.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see 
page  281. 

*  DEODRIS  :  ON  :  LVND  :  267 

Bari    find.      «  *  DEODPIG  "    in   the  list  of 
this  find. 

•frDVRED  ON  LVNDENE  267 

Bari  find.     The  Theodred  family  were  Saxon 
moneyers  of  London. 

•I.DVRED  :  ON  :  LVNDOFE    ^.T\ENRIE  •  REX  •  207 

L.  A.  Lawrence,  17  grs.     PI.  IV,  No.  1.     The 
variety  (B)  described  on  page  64. 

ADORED  :  ON  :  LVN30NI          *I\ENRI  REX        263 

Hunterian      Museum,     Glasgow     University. 
PI.  V,  No.  3. 


•frTOVI :  ON  LVNDENE  *I\ENRIEV  255 

Watford  find,  4  specimens;  L.  A.  Lawrence, 
22  grs.;  F.  E.  Whelan,  from  the  Wigan 
collection.  The  moneyer  continued  to  coin 
for  Stephen. 


4-TOVI  :   ON  LVNDE  *hENRICVS          255 

Watford  find,  6  specimens  ;   British  Museum, 
from  Mr.  Rashleigh. 


ND  •!•...  RIEVS  R       255 

Watford  find. 


312  M  MISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

^VLFEAVEN  ON  LVND  *IiENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  T.  Bliss  ; 
W.  S.  Ogden. 

*VLP  ...    See  ^PVLPAED. 

^PILLELMVS  ON  LVN  255 

Kennard  Sale,  1892,  2  specimens.  From  the 
Linton  find,  WILLELMVS  in  the  catalogue. 
The  moneyer  is  possibly  the  William  Travers, 
citizen  of  London,  of  the  1137  charter 
(Commune  of  Lond.,  101),  and  see  page  357. 


^PILLEM    .....  $<l\E  .  .  IE  .  .  255 

A.  A.  Banes. 

^PVLFPOED  ON  LVND  251 

Egmont-Bieber  Sale,  1889,  £Q  15s.  Od.  From 
the  Shepherd  Sale,  1885.  The  moneyer 
coined  for  Kufus,  and  the  name  appears  on 
Saxon  coins  of  London. 

^PVLFPORD  ON  LVN  ^HNEIEVS  EEX    251 

Lord  Pembroke's  collection,  1750,  sold  1848, 
£11.  Dymock,  1858,  Murchison,  1864, 
Taylor,  1874  Sales.  21-&  grs. 

^PVLFPOED  ON  LVN  *HNEI  EEX  I       251 

Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  i.  1,  but  corrected 
from  "  >£PALFOED." 

^PVLEPOED  ON  NE  ^HNEIEVS  EEX    251 

British  Museum.  See  page  318.  From  the 
Southgate  and  Tyssen,  1802,  collections. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       313 

As  the  period  is  too  early  for  either  Newark 
or  Newcastle  this  mast  be  intended  for 
London,  and  the  moneyer's  name  does  not 
occur  elsewhere.  Even  the  E  instead  of  F 
is  again  similarly  used  in  PVLEPAED  be- 
low. A  somewhat  parallel  case  is  that  of 
^EADPEED  ON  VNEP  on  a  London  coin 
of  Canute.  The  explanation,  therefore,  may 
be  that  the  N  in  ON  is  intended  also  to  be 
read  as  a  monogram  N  —  LV  (instead  of 
the  common  1SL)  thus  giving  us  LVNE.  On 
Canute's  coin  the  N  would  be  NJ  and  so 
=  ON  LVNED. 


»J<PVLPARD  :  ON  LVN  :          .  hENEIEVS  EEX  :    IV 

G.  Deakin;  Sale,  May,  1891.     This  moneyer 
was  probably  son  of  the  above. 


>I<VLP[AED]  ON  :  LVN  :  ^hENEIEVS  E       IV 

British  Museum. 

^PVLFPAED  :  ON  :  LVN):        ^hENEIEVS  EE      262 
Watford  find,  2  specimens. 

^[PV]LEPAED  ON  LVN  ^hENEIEVS  EE    262 

Watford  find. 

*PVLFPAED  ON  LVND  *hENEIEVS  E  :    262 

British  Museum ;  Christmas  Sale,  1864. 

.  PAED  :  ON  :  LVN  ^hENEIEVS  E  :     262 


Spink  and  Son.  From  the  Cuff,  1854, 
£4  6s.  Od.,  Wigan,  Neck  and  Webb,  1894, 
£4  4s.  Od.,  collections. 


314  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


•frPVLFPINE  ON  LVN        ^hEXRI  EBX      I?1"' 

(Rev.      267 

Sheriff  Mackenzie.  The  variety  described  and 
illustrated  as  Fig.  H  on  page  60.  The  name 
occurs  on  London  coins  from  the  time  of 
Ethelred  II. 


t^PVLFPINE  ON  LVND  267 

Bari  find. 

^PVLFPINE  ON  LVNJ  :  »J<hENEI  RE  263 

Spink  and  Son.  PI.  V.  No.  2.  From  the 
Bergne,  1873,  £2,  Simpson  Eostron,  1892, 
£2  4s.  Od.,  and  Montagu,  1896,  £2  8s.  Od., 


^PVLFPINE  :  ON  :  LVN  ^IiENElEVS  E      255 

Bodleian  Library.  Probably  engraved  Withy 
and  Ryall,  i.  23.  The  moneyer  was  perhaps 
son  of  the  above. 


:  ON  :  LVN)  ^hENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  4  specimens  ;  Sheriff  Mackenzie  ; 
W.  C.  Boyd,  from  the  Wadsworth  Sale, 
1891 ;  T.  B.  Winser,  2  specimens ;  E.  K. 
Burstal. 


^PVLFPIN :  ON  t  LVND  »J<fiENEIEVS          255 

Watford  find,  8  specimens. 


»J<PVLFPIN  :  ON  :  LVN  :  ^hENEIEVS 

British   Museum ;    Bodleian   Library ;    F.    G. 
Laurence,  22  grs. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       315 
ON  LVNI  257 

Bari  find.  The  family  of  this  name  had  coined 
here  or  at  Southwark  since  the  time  of 
Canute.  A  Hugh,  son  of  Wulfgar,  was  a 
citizen  of  London,  1125-1137  (Commune  of 
Lond.,  162). 


>I<PVLFGAE  ON  :  LVNDE  :          >thEKEI  EEX         267 

British  Museum.   PI.  VIII.  No.  7.  The  variety 
(D)  described  on  page  64. 


*PVLGAE  :  ON  :  LVN  :  *hENEIEVS  EEX    IV 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.     PI.  VIII.  No.  9. 

•frPVLGAE  ON  LVNDE  265 

Sale,  1842. 

>!<PVL6AE  ON  LVNDE  •  ^hENEIEVS  E      265 

British  Museum. 

^PVLGAE  ON  LVNDEN  :         ^hENEIEVS  EE     262 

Watford   find ;  British    Museum,    from    Mr. 
Rashleigh. 

*PVL6AE  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :          ^hENEIEVS  E  :     262 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  British  Museum, 
2  specimens;  P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-BrittoD, 
from  the  Boyne  Sale,  1896;  J.  Verity; 
Sale,  1842 ;  Cuff  Sale,  1854,  £4  6s.  Od. ; 
Cureton  Sale,  1859. 

*WVLGAE  :  ONLV    DE  :  *hENEIE  .  S  E     262 

Watford  find. 


316  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

I 

SPECIMENS  UNDESCRIBED. 


LONDON. 

Tyssen,  1802,  3  specimens  ;  Phare,  1834  ;  Harrower- 
Johnston,  1876,  £3  12s.  Od. ;  York  Moore, 
1879,  £2  3s.  Od.,  Sales  .  .251 

The  variety  described  as  (A)  on  page  48    (  °bverse      j^f 

(  Reverse      251 

Bentham  Sale,  1834 253 

Allen,  1898;  Shepherd,  1888,  £4  10s.  Od.,  Sales    .  252 

Tyssen  Sale,  1802 263 

„  .  258 

,,  ,,     2  specimens      ....  265 

„  ,,     ;  Bentham,  1834,  £3  4s.  Od.      .  255 

SOUTHWABK. 

Sale,  June,  1901  ....  .265 


NE— NA. 

NE. — Newark  is  claimed  by  Ruding  (vol.  i.,  p.  166  and 
vol.  ii.,  p.  204-5)  for  this  reading  and  he  says  : — 

"  Alexander,  who  was  Bishop  of  Lincoln  from  1123,  the 
twenty-third  year  of  Henry  I.,  to  1147,  the  twelfth  year 
of  Stephen,  had  a  charter  for  coining  money  here.  It  is 
probable  that  this  charter  was  granted  by  the  former  of 
these  kings,  for  Stephen  confirmed  to  the  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  Robert  de  Caysneto,  one  die  for  making  money 
in  his  castle  here  [Newark].  This  grant  was  pleaded  by  the 
Bishop  in  the  third  year  of  Edward  III,  when  he  was  called 
upon  to  show  by  what  right  he  claimed  the  privilege  of 
coining.  It  seems  that  his  plea  was  overruled,  upon  the 
ground  that  Stephen  was  not  the  lawful  king,  but  an 


A    XI  MISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      317 

intruder  into  the  kingdom,  and  therefore  had  no  power 
therein  beyond  the  term  of  his  natural  life.  The  original 
grant  itself  stood  imimpeached." 

The  last  words,  here  given  in  italics,  are  not  supported 
by  the  authorities  quoted  by  Ending  and  are  merely  the 
author's  own  comment.  If  there  had  ever  been  a  like 
grant  from  Henry  I,  the  Bishop  surely  would  have 
pleaded  it  and  the  result  would  have  been  different. 
Henry  I  certainly  granted  several  charters  to  Alexander 
confirming  his  privileges  over  Newark  as  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  (see  the  Monasticon),  but  in  none  of  these  is 
there  any  reference  to  coinage,  and  therefore  when  we 
are  told  that  the  then  Bishop  in  Edward  Ill's  time  on 
being  challenged  upon  a  writ  quo  warranto  to  prove  his 
ancient  rights  of  coinage,  alleged  a  grant  from  Stephen* 
we  have  no  right  whatever  to  throw  it  back  to  a  previous 
reign,  the  more  so  as  the  Bishop  actually  lost  his  case 
from  his  inability  to  show  a  title  from  a  king  dejure.  It 
is  true  that  Stephen's  grant  is  in  a  confirmation  charter, 
but  that  would  follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  his  original 
grant  must  have  been  to  Bishop  Alexander,  probably 
early  in  his  reign.  The  following  is  the  authority  for 
the  facts  as  we  have  them. 

"Episcopus  Line,  summonitus  ad  ostendendum  quo 
warranto  clamat  &c.  cuneum  in  castro  suo  de  Newerk  ad 
monetam  faciendam  3.  Ed.  3.  Episcopus  dicit  quod  S. 
quondam  Rex  Angliae  confirmavit  EcclesiaB  Lincoln.  & 
Roberto  de  Caysneto  Episcopo  unum  cuneum  apud 
Newerk.  Et  Willelmus  de  Denum  qui  sequitur  pro 
Domino  Rege,  quoad  prsedictum  cuneum  dicit,  quod  cum 
Episcopus  clamat  cuneum  ilium  per  Cartam  praedictam, 
S.  quern  idem  Episcopus  afferit  fuisse  Regem  &c.  cuneum 
ilium  eo  titulo  habere  non  potest.  Dicit  enim  quod 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  1    T 


318  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

praedictus  S.  intrusit  se  in  praedicto  regno.  Ita  quod 
postea  idem  S.  non  habuit  statum  in  regimine  ejusdem 
regni  nisi  ad  terminum  vitae  suae  tantum  &c.  unde 
petit  judiciura,  &c."  (Hearne's  William  of  Newbury, 
A.D.  1719.) 

But  the  whole  claim  rests  on  the  reading  of  a  single 
coin — viz.  -frPVLEPOKD  ON  NE  of  type  251 — a  type 
issued  long  before  the  date  of  Bishop  Alexander's 
installation — and  that  coin,  as  we  have  already  seen  on 
pages  312-13,  is  really  of  the  London  mint. 

NA. — In  the  Watford  find,  the  legends  *SWETMAN: 
ON  :  NA  and  *  SWETMAN  ON  ...  B,  occurred  on  type 
255  and,  following  the  same  line  of  reasoning  which  appro- 
priated NE  to  London,  see  page  313,  these  coins  should 
be  given  to  Oxford  as  contractions  of  ON  OXNAFORD.  the 
ON  standing  in  a  double  capacity  for  ON  and  OX ;  just  as 
the  N  in  ON  serves  for  the  N  of  NOEPIC  in  Henry's 
early  types  of  that  mint.  The  name  Swetman  occurs 
on  the  Oxford  coins  of  William  I,  and  also  in  Domesday 
as  monetarius  of  that  city. 


NORTHAMPTON. 

NOBTHAMTUNE,      NoKTHANTUNE,       NOEHANTUNE,      NoRTHANTONA  J 

Domesday,    NOKTHANTONE     and     HANTONE  ;     Pipe    Roll, 

NORHANTONA. 

Although  Celtic  and  Roman  remains  abound  in  the 
immediate  vicinity,  the  ancient  town  of  Northampton 
does  not  seem  to  find  its  way  into  the  pages  of  history 
until  the  ninth  century,  when  it  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Danes,  and  for  nearly  fifty  years  remained  in  their 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    G?   HENRY  I.      319 

possession.  In  922,  however,  it  was  recovered  by  Edward 
the  Elder ;  but,  although  in  941  the  garrison  successfully 
resisted  the  siege  of  Anlaf,  the  Dane,  in  1010  the  burg 
was  burnt  to  the  ground.  During  the  insurrection  of  the 
Northumbrians  in  1065, "  the  northern  men  did  muchharm 
about  Northampton  ....  inasmuch  as  they  slew  men 
and  burnt  houses  and  corn,  and  took  all  the  cattle  they 
could  get,  and  that  was  many  thousand ;  and  many 
hundred  men  they  took  and  led  northward  with  them ;  so 
that  that  shire,  and  the  other  shires  which  were  nigh, 
were  for  many  years  the  worse."  (Sax.  Chron.) 

[For  the  history  and  devolution  of  the  Earldom  of 
Northampton  see  ante,  under  Huntingdon,  pages  219- 
227.] 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — "In  the  time  of  King  Edward 
there  were  60  burgesses  in  lordship  of  the  King  at 
Northampton,  having  the  same  number  of  houses.  Of 
these  houses,  14  are  now  laid  waste.  There  are  47 
remaining ;  in  addition  to  these  there  are  now  40 
burgesses  in  the  new  burg."  Details  are  given  of  the 
possessions  of  the  various  feudatories  which  raise  the 
total  number  of  houses  within  the  burg  to  316,  of 
which,  however,  35  are  laid  waste — no  doubt  owing 
to  the  raid  of  1065.  "The  burgesses  of  [North] 
Hampton  pay  £30  10s.  Od.  to  the  sheriff  per  annum ; 
this  represents  ihejirma  itself.  The  Countess  Judith 
(see  under  Huntingdon,  page  220)  has  £7  out  of  the 
returns  of  the  same  burg." 

1106.  The  conference  of  King  Henry  and  Robert  of  Nor- 
mandy at  Northampton.  (Sax.  Chron.) 

11078.  Foundation  charter  of  St.  Andrew's  Priory; 
probably  in  the  spring  of  1108. 

1122.  The  "King  held  his  Easter  Court  at  Northampton. 
(Sax.  Chron.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— The  burg  is  separated  from  the 
usual  county  returns.  Robert  Revel  [as  sheriff],  after 
paying  £8  2s.  Id.  for  customary  disbursements,  and 
20s.  to  the  monks  of  Northampton,  also  3  shillings  and 
8d.  to  the  same  monks  "  for  their  laud  which  the 


320  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

King  took  below  his  Castle,"  returns  £90  14s.  8d. 
[balance]  "  of  the  firm  a  of  the  burg  of  Northampton  " 
[total,  £100].  The  burg  also  contributes  £8  4s.  Od. 
as  auxillum.  Under  the  Xova  Placita  of  the  county 
Geoffrey  "  de  Gunetorp  "  accounts  for  ten  marks  of 
silver  on  a  Treasury  plea. 

1131.  September  8.  The  great  Council  at  Northampton, 
when  Henry  summoned  all  his  Barons  to  take  the 
oath  of  fealty  to  Matilda  as  heiress  to  the  throne. 

It  is  probable  that  in  the  early  years  of  the  Conqueror, 
Earl  Waltheof  had  the  privilege  of  a  joint  mint  at  North- 
ampton and  Huntingdon,  but  after  his  death,  at  least,  its 
coinage  seems  to  have  been  entirely  confined  to  the  latter 
town.  The  royal  mint  of  Northampton  was  the  creation 
of  Henry  I,  and  our  coins  of  it  tell  us  that  its  date  of 
origin  must  have  been  about  1126-1128. 

We  have  seen,  under  Huntingdon,  pages  219-227,  that 
upon  his  marriage  in  1113  with  Maud,   widow  of  Earl 
Simon  and  daughter  of  Waltheof,  David,  Prince  of  Cum- 
bria, received  the  Earldom  of  Huntingdon,  and  the  custody 
of  that  of  Northampton,  in  right  of  his  wife.     In  1124 — 
to  quote  the  Saxon   Chronicler — "  died  Alexander,  King 
of  Scotland,  on   the  9th  before  the  Kalends  of  May  [i.e. 
April  23rd]   and  his  brother  David,  then  Earl  of  North- 
amptonshire, succeeded  him  and  held  at  the  same  time 
both  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland  and  the  English  earldom." 
This  would  appear  to  be  the  last  record  in  which  King 
David  is  associated  with   the  Earldom  of  Northampton. 
That  he  retained  his  Earldom  of  Huntingdon  there  can 
be  no  doubt,  but  whenever  his  English  Earldom  is  subse- 
quently referred  to,  it  is  that  of  Huntingdon  alone.    Even 
when  he  invaded  England  in  1138  his  claim  was  to  the 
government  of  Northumbria,  the  town  of  Carlisle  and  the 
Earldom  of  Huntingdon,  so  it  is  scarcely  credible  that  he 
still  retained  any  pretensions  to  the  Earldom  of  Northamp- 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       321 

ton.  The  inference,  therefore,  is  that  on  his  accession  to  the 
Scottish  throne  in  1124,  the  precedent  of  1121  in  the  case 
of  the  Earldom  of  Chester  (pages  140,  145  and  148)  was 
followed,  the  joint  earldom  was  severed,  and  he  relinquished 
that  of  Northampton  to  the  King.  He  was  certainly  not 
Earl  of  Northampton  at  the  date  of  the  Pipe  Roll,  and 
thefrrma  of  the  burg  was  then  paid  direct  to  the  Treasury, 
hence  the  change  must  have  occurred  between  April  1124 
and  Michaelmas  1129.  His  first  visit  to  England  after 
his  accession  was  in  January,  1127,  and  as  he  would  then 
pay  homage  as  King  of  Scotland  to  Henry  for  his  English 
Earldom,  it  may  be  assumed  that  he  then  surrendered 
Northampton  and  received  a  confirmation  charter  of  the 
Earldom  of  Huntingdon  alone. 

But  we  have  other  evidence  in  support  of  this  conten- 
tion. Tihefirtna  of  the  burg  was  £30  10s.  Od.  at  the  date 
of  Domesday,  and  yet  in  1130  it  was  .£100.  At  the  latter 
date  the  burgesses  had  acquired  the  privilege  of  paying 
th'jir  firma  through  the  sheriff  of  their  burg  instead  of 
through  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  thus  escaping  the 
extortions  of  the  then  prevailing  system  of  assessment : 
a  privilege  which  seems  only  to  have  been  acquired  by 
such  royal  cities  or  burgs  as  London,  Lincoln,  and  Car- 
lisle. The  castle,  which  had  been  founded  by  Earl  Simon, 
now  belongs  to  the  King,  and  he  has  evidently  been 
extending  its  fortifications.  All  these  changes  can  only 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  King  had  recovered 
possession  of  the  burg  and  had  already  granted  a  charter 
of  privileges  to  its  burgesses.  He  could  not  have  granted 
it  before  April,  1124,  when  it  was  still  in  the  possession  of 
David,  nor  before  the  latter  tendered  his  homage  for  his 
English  possessions,  and  so  its  date  may  be  assumed  to 
have  been  January,  1127. 


322  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

The  history  of  Northampton  is  indeed  almost  identical 
at  this  period  with  that  of  Carlisle.  In  1122  Henry  held 
his  Easter  Court  at  Northampton  and  spent  Michaelmas 
at  Carlisle  (Sim.  of  Durham).  Just  as  Carlisle,  in  1120, 
was  surrendered  to  the  King  by  Ralph  de  Meschines  in 
exchange  for  a  confirmation  charter  of  the  Earldom  of 
Chester,  and  thus  became  a  royal  burg,  so  Northampton 
in  1127  was  similarly  surrendered  by  David  in  exchange 
for  his  confirmation  charter  of  the  Earldom  of  Huntingdon. 
Charters  of  privileges  to  the  burgesses  immediately  followed 
in  both  cases.  In  1129  a  royal  mint  was  established  at 
Carlisle,  and  in,  January,  1127,  it  is  contended,  a  royal 
mint  was  established  at  Northampton;  probably  by  the 
charter  of  privileges  itself. 

We  have  ample  evidence  that  Northampton  was  a  royal 
mint,  for,  according  to  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  subsequent 
reigns,  the  moneyers  contributed  £10  towards  the  auxilium 
for  marrying  Henry  II's  daughter,  Maud,  and  aftrma  of 
£'3.  The  mint  or  its  moneyers  "  in  the  burg  of  Northamp- 
ton "  is  frequently  mentioned,  and,  finally,  in  1189 
Richard  I,  in  his  charter  to  the  burgesses,  confirms  their 
privileges  in  identical  language  and  with  the  same  excep- 
tion as  in  his  charter  to  London  (pages  276  and  284),  viz., 
"  that  none  shall  plead  without  the  walls  of  the  burg  of 
Northampton  upon  any  plea,  save  pleas  of  outholdings, 
except  our  moneyers  and  officers "  (see  Records  of  the 
Borough  of  Northampton).  As,  therefore,  Richard's 
charter  to  London  confirmed  Henry  I's  charter  to  the 
city  almost  word  for  word,  it  may  be  assumed  that  his 
charter  to  Northampton  similarly  confirmed  that  of 
January,  1127.  The  more  so  as  the  mint  of  Northampton 
was  instituted  in  that  year. 

The  first  type  in  evidence  is  that  of  265  (1126-1128), 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HEXRY  1.      323 

and  as  yet,  the  name  of  one  moneyer,  only,  seems  forth- 
coming upon  it.     But  on  the  following  type,  262  (1129- 
1131),  when  the  mint  had  come  into  full  operation,  two 
names  appear,  viz.,  that  of  the  original  raoneyer  and  of 
one  6EFFRE.     In  6EFFRE  we  have  the  Geoffrey  de  Gune- 
torpe,  who  in  1129-30  is  fined  10  marks  of  silver  on  a 
Treasury  plea,  presumably  for  some  offence  committed 
by  his  subordinates  in  charge  of  the  mint.     Gunetorpe, 
i.e.,   Gunthorpe,  is   near  Oakham;  and  there,  no  doubt, 
was  the  royal  moneyer 's  feu.    Having  been  fined,  his  office 
was   as   usual  forfeited,    and   his   name   is  absent    from 
the  subsequent  type.     Type  255  (1131-1135),  on  which 
the    number  of  moneyers  is  further  increased  to  three, 
follows,  thus  giving  us  a  complete  series  from  January, 
1127,  to  the  close  of  the  reign. 

The  mint  of  Northampton  was  continued  until  the  reign 
of  Henry  III. 

It  has  not  escaped  observation  that  Hantone  occurs,  in 
one  instance,  in  Domesday  as  the  name  of  this  town,  and 
that  every  known  type  of  the  coins  of  Henry  I  reading  ON 
ft  AMTVN,  etc.,  and  assigned  to  Southampton,  exactly  corres- 
ponds as  to  date  with  the  presence  in  England  of  Earl  Simon 
and  Earl  David  respectively,  also  that  the  name  PAIEN  is 
found  as  a  moneyer  upon  some  of  them.  But  in  view  of  the 
general  consension  of  opinion  that  the  mint  of  Hampton, 
established  by  Athelstan's  Law,  was  at  the  southern  town, 
of  the  absence  of  any  break  in  the  coinage  when  the 
latter  mint  may  be  said  to  have  been  discontinued  and  that 
of  Northampton  commenced,  and  of  the  record  of  a  coin 
of  William  I  reading  NORHAM  at  the  very  time  when  the 
name,  according  to  Domesday,  was  already  in.  transition, 
the  weight  of  evidence  is  not,  as  yet,  deemed  sufficient  to 
outweigh  the  claims  of  Southampton  to  a  Norman  mint. 


324  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

COINS. 


»I<6EFFEE[1]  :  ON  :  NORhA  :    »!<h  .  .  RIEVS  E  .     262 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.     As  to  this  moneyer, 
see  before. 


»^6EFFEE[I]  ON  :  NOEhA  :      ^hENEIEV  EE      262 
British  Museum. 

^PAIEN  :  ON  :  NOEI\AM  ^hENEIEV          255 

Clarkson  Sale,  1901  ;  Allen  Sale,  1898  ;  Sale, 
April,  1864.  This  moneyer  was  probably 
Geoffrey's  successor,  and  may  possibly  have 
been  the  Payn  de  Hocton  ('?  Houghton,  2f 
miles  from  Northampton)  who,  about  1129, 
married  the  widow  of  Edward  of  Salisbury 
(Pipe  Roll). 

*PAIEN  :    .  N  :  NO  .  .  AN  .  .  ENRIEVS  255 

Spink  and  Son. 

:  ON  NOE  .  N  :  .  .  ENRI6VS          255 

W.  C.  Wells. 


»I<PAIEN  ON  NOEIxA  :  >£hEN  .  .  .  .  S          255 

L.  A.  Lawrence  ;  Watford  find. 

^iPAIEN  ON  NOEI\AM  >J<I\ENEIEV  .  255 

J.  Verity. 

^[PAE]  N  :  ON  :  NOEhAM          .........  255 

Sir  John  Evans.  As  there  is  scarcely  room 
for  PAIEN,  the  name  has  probably  now 
assumed  its  shortened  form  PAEN  as  in 
Stephen's  reign. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HEXRY  I.      325 

*STIEFNES  :  ON  [NOEJhA       .  .  ENEIEVS  R        265 
Allen  Sale,  1898,  photographed  in  the  catalogue. 

^STIEFNES  ON,  .....  265 

Cuff  Sale,  1854,  £4  (corrected). 

^STIEFNES  ON  ____  A  265 

Sale,  January,  1860. 

[*ST]IFNE  :  ON  :  NOE[hA  :]     [*hENEIE]VS  E   262 
Watford  find. 

*STIFNE  :  ON    ...  *hE  .  EIEVS          255 


Watford   find.      This    moneyer's   name    only 
occurs  elsewhere  at  Winchester. 


•fcSTIF  .........  ^IiENEIE  255 


Fitz-William  Museum,  Cambridge  ;  Royal  Mint 
collection. 


>J<S[T]EPI\AN    .  .    ....  ^[I\E]NEIE  255 

Watford  find. 


.  .  OD  :  ON  :  NOE[I\]A     .  I\ENEIEVS  255 

Watford    find.      The    moneyer's    name    was 
probably  PVLNOD. 


ON  :  NOEhA  ^h  ----  EVS  :        255 


British  Museum  ;  Sale,  1842. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  U   U 


326  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

OX  NORhA  :  >J«riENRIEVS  255 

British  Museum;  Watford  find,  2  specimens. 

The  coins  formerly  attributed  to  this  mint  bearing 
the  moneyer's  name  OSWEF,  OSVEF  or 
VSVEF,  of  Northampton,  have  been  exposed 
by  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence,  in  Num.  Chron., 
III.,  x.  p.  42-47,  and,  as  he  demonstrates, 
are  all  false. 


NORWICH  (NORFOLK). 

NOBTHWIC,  NORDWIC,  NoRpovicuM ;  Domesday  and  Pipe  Roll, 

NORWIC. 

Although  there  are  many  indications  that  the  immediate 
vicinity  to  Norwich  was  the  centre  of  a  considerable  popu- 
lation in  Celtic,  Roman,  and  British  times,  the  name  of 
the  town  itself  does  not  enter  the  pages  of  our  English 
chronicles  until  a  comparatively  late  period.  In  1004 
the  Danes,  under  Sweyn,  sacked  and  burnt  the  burg  ;  but 
it  must  have  soon  recovered,  for  in  the  reign  of  the  Con- 
fessor Norwich  boasted  one  of  the  largest  populations  in 
the  country. 

1075.  The  conspiracy  and  fall  of  Ralph  de  Guader,  Earl 
of  East  Anglia  (see  pp.  220  and  230).  The  Earl 
fled  abroad  and  his  estates  were  confiscated,  but 
his  wife  defended  Norwich  against  the  King  "  until 
she  obtained  terms."  (Sax.  Chron.)  The  town 
suffered  considerably  during  the  siege,  as  is  evidenced 
in  Domesday. 

1075-6.  Hubert  de  Rye  appointed  Castellan  of  the 
"  Tower  of  Norwich." 

1082.  Roger  Bigod  appointed  King's  Castellan  of  Nor- 
wich. [For  the  history  of  this  family,  see  under 
Ipswich,  pages  228-236.] 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      327 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  Norwich  there  were,  in  the 
time  of  King  Edward,  1,320  burgesses,  of  whom  1,230 
rendered  soca  and  saka  and  paid  customs  to  the  King. 
Now  there  are  in  the  burg  665  English  burgesses  who 
pay  customs  and  480  bondsmen  [who  had  evidently 
lost  their  freedom  during  the  revolt  of  Earl  Ralph  and 
had  been  reduced  to  serfdom]  too  impoverished  to 
pay.  About  100  houses  have  been  destroyed  for  the 
site  of  the  Castle,  and  there  are  no  fewer  than  190 
vacated  in  the  burg.  Many  additional  details  are 
given,  including  the  names  of  various  feudatories  who 
also  held  houses  within  the  burg.  The  whole  town  in 
the  time  of  the  Confessor  paid  £20  to  the  King  and 
£10  to  the  Earl ;  also  certain  customs,  including  a  bear 
and  six  dogs  to  bait  it.  Now  it  pays  £70  by  weight 
to  the  King  and  100  shillings  by  number  as  bounty 
to  the  Queen,  and  one  goshawk  and  £20  blanched  to 
the  Earl  and  '20  shillings  by  number  as  a  fine  to  God- 
ric  [the  sheriff].  In  this  burg,  if  he  wishes,  the  Bishop 
[of  the  See  of  East  Anglia,  then  located  at  Thetford 
but  afterwards  at  Norwich]  is  allowed  to  have  one 
moneyer. 

The  Normans  of  Norwich.     In  the  new  burg  there 
were  36  burgesses  and  six  English,  from  whom  the 
King  had  two  parts  and  the  Earl  the  third  ;  now  there 
are  41  in  lordship  to   the  King  and  Roger  Bigod  has 
50,  and  others  are  under  various  feudatories. 
1094.     Herbert,  Bishop  of  East  Anglia,  "  transferred  the 
seat  of  his  bishopric  [from  Thetford]  to  a  town  cele- 
brated as  a  place   of  trade  and  general  mart  called 
Norwich,  and  founded  there  a  monastery."   (Florence.) 
1119.     July  22.     Death  of  Bishop  Herbert.     (Florence.) 
1121.     March.     Everard,  Chaplain  to  the    Kin^,  is   ap- 
pointed Bishop  and  consecrated  June  12th.  (Florence.) 
December  25.     The  King  holds  his  Christmas  Court 
at  Norwich  (Sax.  Chron.),and  is  said  to  have  granted 
a  charter  to  the  citizens  extending  their  privileges. 
ll:)0.     Pipe    Roll  notes. — Edstan  de   Gernemuda   [Yar- 
mouth]    accounts    for     twenty-three    shillings    and 
four  pence  on  a  Treasury  plea,  and  Siverd  de  Gerue- 
muda  and    Aniuud  de   Gernemuda  similarly  for  ten 
shillings  each.     Edstan  owes  one  hundred  shillings 
for    [his    fees    on    bis    succession    to]    the    personal 
effects  of  Ulchetel  the  moneyer.     The  city  of  Norwich 
contribuies  £80  in  inucilinin,  but  one  hundred  shillings 


328  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

of  it  are  remitted  to  the  burgesses  by  the  King's  writ. 
The  Bishop  of  Ely  accounts  for  £500  that  his  knights 
might  keep  Castle  Guard  in  the  Isle  of  Ely  instead  of 
at  Norwich  Castle.  [This  is  evidently  the  considera- 
tion for  the  well-known  charter  to  that  effect.] 

During  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  the  Kings  of 
East  Anglia  issued  a  considerable  coinage,  and  as  there 
seems  every  reason  to  assume  that  the  moneyers  were 
at  that  time  attached  to  the  King's  Court,  some  of  it,  at 
least,  would  probably  be  issued  at  Norwich. 

The  known  coinage  of  Norwich  commences  in  the 
reign  of  Athelstan,  and  was  continued  under  every  suc- 
ceeding Saxon  King.  The  mint  was  one  of  the  most 
prolific  in  the  country  and  a  royal  mint  throughout  its 
existence.  At  the  date  of  Domesday  its  firma,  as  at 
Huntingdon,  Dorchester,  and  other  towns,  was  evidently 
included  in  that  of  the  burgesses,  and  it  is  expressly 
stipulated  that  the  Bishop  of  East  Anglia  was  entitled 
to  one  of  its  moneyers  when  he  wished.  It  will  be 
noticed  in  Domesday  that  out  of  the  firma  of  the  burg, 
100  shillings  are  reserved  to  the  Queen  and  £20  to  the 
Earl.  At  that  date  there  was  neither  Queen  nor  Earl, 
but,  as  explained  in  the  case  of  Dover,  page  175,  these 
sums  would  be  received  by  the  King.  It  will  presently 
be  suggested  that  the  item  of  100  shillings  so  paid  "  de 
Gersuma  Reginse  "  was,  in  fact,  the  actual  firma  of  the 
mint,  or,  at  least,  its  contribution  to  the  common  firma 
of  the  burg.  We  know  from  charters  of  Henry  II  and 
Richard  I  that  Norwich  was  a  royal  mint — and  there  is 
no  evidence  as  yet  forthcoming  that  the  Bishop  ever 
exercised  his  privilege  of  a  moneyer  in  it. 

As  a  royal  mint,  leased  to  the  citizens,  one  would 
naturally  expect  to  find  a  complete  series  of  types  issued 
from  it,  but  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I  this  is  not  quite  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      329 

case.  From  the  commencement  of  the  reign  to  the  year 
1114,  with  the  exception  of  one— 256  (1108-1110)— all 
the  types  are  represented  on  our  coins,  viz.,  251,  254, 
253,  252  (1100-1108),  257  and  267  (1110-1114).  But 
now,  for  seven  years/there  is  a  gap  in  the  coinage  of 
Norwich,  for  types  266,  264,  and  263,  are  absent.  It 
may  be  that  accident  may  yet  disclose  specimens  of 
them,  but  when  we  notice  the  coincidences  that  at  the 
very  date  of  the  previously  missing  type  256  (1108- 
1110)  Queen  Matilda  was  upon  her  only  journey  to 
Normaiidy  and  witnessed  Henry's  charter  to  the  Priory 
of  St.  Faith,  Longueville,  at  Rouen  {Documents  in  France), 
and  that  after  the  marriage  of  her  daughter  in  1114  she 
retired  into  what  was  practically  a  conventual  life  at 
Westminster  until  her  death  on  May  1st,  1118,  it  would 
seem  as  if  the  mint  of  Norwich  was  her  privilege  and 
under  her  immediate  control.  Domesday  reserved  100 
shillings  out  of  the  firma  of  the  burg  to  the  Queen  of 
England,  and,  in  1129-1130,  100  shillings  was,  as  will 
be  submitted  upon  the  evidence  of  the  Pipe  Roll,  the  then 
Jirma  of  the  mint.  Hence,  when  to  these  reasons  ia 
added  the  coincidence  of  the  absence  of  Queen  Adeliza  in 
Normandy  during  1128-9,  when  the  mint  was  again 
closed,  there  would  appear  to  be  reasonable  ground  for 
suspicion,  at  least,  that  the  mint  of  Norwich  and  its 
fir  ma  were  amongst  the  perquisites  of  the  Queen  Consort 
for  the  time  being,  in  very  much  the  same  manner  as 
similar  privileges  were  held  by  the  Norman  Earls. 

On  January  29th,  1121,  King  Henry  married  Adeliza 
of  Louvain,  and  the  mint  is  in  consequence  reopened  by 
the  citizens  in  type  IV  (1121-1123).  This  is  followed  in 
succession  by  types  258  and  265  (1123-1128).  In  1128 
Queen  Adeliza  was  in  Normandy,  no  doubt  to  attend 


330  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

her  step-daughter,  Matilda's,  marriage,  for  in  September, 
at  the  very  date  when  type  262  was  issued  in  England, 
she  was  present  at  the  great  synod  at  Rouen.  This  is 
proved  by  the  charter  to  Savigny  Abbey  which  she  wit- 
nessed, and  which,  in  Documents  in  France,  Mr.  Round 
dates  1124-1133.  But  as  it  is  also  witnessed  by  King 
Henry  ;  John,  Bishop  of  Lisieux  ;  Richard,  Bishop  of 
Bayeux ;  John,  Bishop  of  Saies  ;  and  Turgis,  Bishop  of 
Avranches,  all  of  whom  are  mentioned  by  Orderic  as 
being  present  at  the  synod,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
it  was  granted  upon  that  occasion  and  that  its  specific 
date  was  therefore  September,  1128.  This  may,  there- 
fore, account  for  the  curious  absence  of  any  coins  of 
type  262  (1128-1131)  from  the  Norwich  mint ;  curious, 
because  on  that  type  appear  the  names  of  more  towns 
than  upon  any  other  in  Henry's  series.  Adeliza  doubtless 
returned  to  England  during  its  currency,  that  is,  before, 
perhaps,  in  July,  1129,  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  some  coins  of  it,  struck  at  Norwich,  may  yet  be 
found;  but  all  those  hitherto  attributed  to  this  mint  have, 
upon  examination,  proved  to  belong  to  Northampton,  and 
so,  for  the  present  at  least,  the  negatory  evidence  prevails. 
The  apparent  absence  of  type  262  (1128-1131)  is  another 
of  these  remarkable  coincidences  between  the  records  of  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  1129-30  and  the  evidence  of  our  coins.  On 
page  171  it  has  been  shown  that  ihefirma  of  the  mint  of 
Dorchester  was  40s.  at  the  date  of  Domesday,  and  that 
when  the  mint  was  closed  in  1129-30,  the  Pipe  Roll 
records  that  out  of  the  auxilium  of  that  town  40s.  was 
remitted  to  the  burgesses.  Similar  instances  occur  at 
Colchester,  Oxford,  Tamworth,  Thetford,  and  "Wallingford. 
When,  therefore,  we  read  in  the  same  Roll,  and  in 
identical  language,  that  in  1129-1130,  out  of  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGX    OF    HEXRY  I.       331 

of  Norwich  100  shillings  were  remitted  to  the  burgesses, 
we  may  fairly  assume  that  not  only  was  the  item  of  100 
shillings  the  firma  of  the  mint,  but  that  the  mint  was  also 
closed  during  that  particular  year,  and,  when  coupled 
with  the  fact  of  the  rarity  of  the  current  type,  262,  this 
assumption  almost  approaches  a  certainty. 

The  entries  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  concerning  the  three 
inea  of  Yarmouth  probably  relate  to  a  fine  for  short 
weight  in  their  returns  for  the  firma  of  that  town,  as  it 
never  had  a  mint.  But  the  item  "Edstan  owes  one 
hundred  shillings  for  the  personal  effects  ["  de  pecunia," 
see  page  179]  of  TJlchetel  the  moneyer,"  directly  concerns 
two  money ers  of  Norwich.  Ulchetel  was  the  VLFEfilTEL 
on  type  265  (1126-1128),  and  as  his  name  does  not  again 
occur,  we  may  assume  that  he  died  in  1128  or  1129. 
Edstan  is  the  EDSTAN  whose  name  appears  on  type  255 
as  soon  as  the  mint  reopens  in  1131.  At  Hereford, 
Domesday  tells  us,  that  "in  case  of  the  death  of  a 
moneyer  of  the  King,  the  King  had  a  duty  of  20s.,  but 
if  a  moneyer  died  intestate,  the  King  had  all  his  effects." 
So  probably  Ulfchetel  died  intestate,  and  Edstan  his  heir 
redeemed  "all  his  effects"  for  100s.  Further,  Ulchetel's 
is  the  only  moneyer' s  name  which  appears  on  the  previous 
type,  265  (1126-1128)  and  what  Edstan  pays  for  succeed- 
ing to  his  personal  effects — and  office — is  exactly  equal  to 
one  year's  firma  of  the  mint.  The  mint  may,  perhaps, 
have  been  closed  in  1129-1130  in  consequence  of  the 
death  of  its  moneyer,  Ulchetel. 

This  suggests  another  probable  pedigree.  Domesday 
refers  to  an  Edstan  of  Norwich  who  seems  to  have  been  in 
the  position  of  an  official  of  Edward  the  Confessor.  He  is 
followed,  presumably,  by  his  son  Ulchetel,  who  held  lands 
in  Norfolk  in  1086  (Domesday),  and  was  probably  the 


332  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

VLFCITEL  whose  name  appears  on  the  Norwich  coins  of  the 
Williams ;  and  he  again  by  his  son  ETSTAN,  who  coins  in 
nearly  all  Henry's  types  between  1104  and  1125.  He 
could  scarcely  be  the  EDSTAN  of  the  Roll  and  of  type  255, 
as  that  form  of  the  name  is  continued  upon  Norwich  coins 
until  about  the  year  1150.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that 
ETSTAN  disappeared  at  the  date  of  the  great  Inquisition 
of  the  Money ers  of  Christmas,  1125,  leaving  two  sons,  the 
VLCKETEL  and  EDSTAN  referred  to  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

From  the  commencement  of  Henry's  reign  to  the  year 
1130,  after  allowing  for  changes  during  the  currency  of  a 
type,  the  usual  number  of  moiieyers  coining  at  Norwich 
has  evidently  been  two,  although  at  times  only  one, 
but  now,  when  the  mint  is  reopened  with  type  255 
(1131-1135)  that  number  is  raised  to  at  least  six. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  a  similarly  remarkabb 
increase  occurred  in  the  same  type  at  London,  page  283, 
when,  after  making  ample  allowance  for  the  inclusien 
of  the  Southwark  moneyers,  the  number  was  doubled. 
The  explanation  of  the  sudden  increase  at  London 
was  the  King's  charter  of  privileges  to  the  citizens, 
and  so  the  same  cause  must  be  looked  for  at  Norw  ch. 
All  Norfolk  historians  are  agreed  that  Henry  I  graated 
a  charter  to  Norwich,  and  they  very  naturally  have 
assigned  its  date  to  the  occasion  when  he  held  his  Cou-t 
there  in  1121-2,  for  at  the  time  they  wrote,  the  London 
charter  was  believed  to  have  been  granted  in  1101.  Ihe 
evidence  of  the  charter,  assuming  that  it  is  not  extant,  rests 
on  one  of  Henry  II  confirming  it,  which  recites  that  the 
citizens  of  Norwich  had  the  same  privileges  as  the  citizens 
of  London,  therefore  it  must  have  been  either  contem- 
porary with  or  subsequent  to  the  London  charter,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  granted  between  Michaelmas,  1129, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    TIIK    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       333 

and  Michaelmas  1131.  The  1130  Pipe  Roll  also  proves 
that  the  citizens  of  Norwich  did  not  then  hold  their  city 
under  any  charter  similar  to  that  of  London,  and  yet  that 
their  charter  was  identical  is  also  proved  by  its  confirma- 
tion by  Richard  I,  wffich  is  almost  word  for  word  the  same 
as  his  confirmation  charter  to  London. 

It  is  not  essential  to  the  story  of  the  Norwich  mint  that 
1121-2  should  be  proved  to  be  an  error  for  the  presumed 
date,  but  the  evidence  of  the  coins  themselves  very  strongly 
suggests  that  the  date  was  1130 — 1131  (Michaelmas),  and 
very  probably  the  charter  was  granted  at  the  Court  held 
at  Northampton  on  September  8th,  1131.  Richard  I's 
charter  confirms  the  privilege  to  the  citizens  of  only 
having  to  plead  within  their  walls,  but,  as  at  London, 
excepts  from  it  "my  moneyers  and  officers,"  hence  the 
original  charter,  as  was  the  effect  of  that  to  the  metropolis, 
probably  included  the  mint  and  the  moneyers  in  the  grant 
to  the  citizens.  By  it,  the  status  of  the  citizens  was 
changed  from  that  of  being  mere  lessees  of  a  mint,  subject 
to  a  restricted  number  of  moneyers,  to  that  of  absolute 
ownership,  as  explained  in  the  case  of  London,  and  so  they 
immediately  revived  the  mint,  doubled  the  number  of 
moneyers,  and  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  issued  a  prolific 
coinage,  for  it  was  to  their  obvious  advantage  to  turn  it 
to  as  much  profit  as  they  possibly  could.  Queen  Adeliza 
would  no  doubt  join  in  the  charter  in  consequence  of  her 
rights  in  the  firma,  and  afterwards,  as  Richard's  charter 
implies,  the  mint  of  Norwich  probably  regained  its  strictly 
royal  character. 

Ruding,  vol.  ii.  p.  200,  quotes  a  record  of  the  discovery 
of  coins  of  Henry  I,  whilst  the  walls  of  Norwich  were 
being  rebuilt  or  extended,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  II, 
and  that  "  one  pound  of  silver  of  that  money  was  more 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  X  X 


334  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

in  value  by  three  pence,  or  three  pennyweights,  than  a 
pound  of  the  then  current  coin."  They  were  most  likely 
of  type  255  (1131-1135),  the  last  type  of  Henry,  and 
buried  during  the  disturbances  at  Norwich  early  in 
Stephen's  reign.  In  any  case  they  must  have  been  later 
in  date  than  1125  or  they  would  not  have  averaged  even 
equally  in  weight  to  "  the  then  current  coin." 

The  mint  was  continued  in  every  reign  until  the 
accession  of  Edward  I,  and  in  later  times  it  was  revived 
on  one  or  two  occasions. 

COINS. 

•frALDENA  ON  NOB  .  rxENEI  EEX         252 

British  Museum.  Aid  en  —  from  which  we  have 
Halden  and  Haldane  —  occurs  in  Domesday 
as  "  Godwin-Halden,"  who  held  lands  in 
Norfolk.  GODPINE  coined  at  Norwich  for 
William  I-II. 

•frAILPI  :  ON  :  NOKP  ^riENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  5  specimens  ;  British  Museum. 
Ailwi  continued  to  coin  in  Stephen's  reign. 

»I<BALD[PINE]  ON  NOE  .  fiENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find.  This  moneyer  seems  to  have 
been  removed  to  Thetford  in  the  following 
reign. 

*[BALD]PINE  ON  NO  .  ^fiENEIEVS  255 

Ben  well  Sale,  1849. 


:  ON  :  NOEWIE  .  frENEIEVS  E      255 

Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.  24  (corrected 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      335 

from  EOL) ;  British  Museum  ;  J.  Verity, 
from  the  Boyne  Sale,  .1896.  This  name 
occurs  in  Domesday  under  Kent. 


&  .  OE  :  ON  :  NORWIE  •  .  hENEIEVS  255 

Engraved  Ruding,  ii.  6. 

•KTOE    .  .    NOEWIE  ^fiENEIEV  255 

F.  A.  Walters.  The  T  is  of  course  the  die- 
sinker's  error  for  E,  and  it  is  interesting 
inasmuch  as  it  curiously  supports  the  con- 
tention on  page  28  that  written  instructions 
for  the  desired  legends  were  supplied  from 
the  local  mints  to  the  Aurifaber  at  London, 
as,  in  the  ordinary  Court-hand  of  the  day, 
there  was  so  little  distinction  between  the 
"fe  =  C  and  the  "b  =  T  that  the  lapsus  calami 
is  readily  apparent.  This  explanation  should 
be  the  key  to  some  of  our  unintelligible  or 
blundered  legends  —  see  also  page  338. 


ON  NOE  .  IE  *I\ENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  British  Museum  ; 
Lincoln  and  Son.  The  moneyer  continued 
to  coin  for  Stephen. 


*ETSTAN  0  N[0]E[P]IE         *hENBI  EEX  A      253 

Engraved  Withy  and  Byall,  ii.  13,  but  the 
reverse  legend  is  corrected  from  +ETVEI 
O  NEIE.  [Compare  the  similar  instance 
of  BISES  on  the  same  plate,  explained  on 
page  117.]  On  the  Norwich  coins  of 
William  I  and  II  it  was  the  rule,  rather  than 
the  exception,  for  the  N  in  ON  to  serve  also 
for  the  N  in  the  name  of  the  mint,  a  custom 
continued  on  the  early  types  only  of  this 
reign.  As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 


336 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


^ETSTAN  ON  NOR  257 

Phare  Sale,  1834,  corrected ;  Sale,  November, 
1847. 


^ETSTAN  ON  NOB  257 

Sale,  1847. 

OEJTSTAN  .  N  N  . .  267 

Bari  find. 

•fcETSTAN  :  ON  :  NO  .          ^TiENRIE  ....  X  :        IV 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  Obverse,  a  quatrefoil  over  the 
right  shoulder,  as  Ending,  Sup.  ii.  2,  6. 
Reverse,  pellets  in  the  angles  of  the  cross  as 
also  on  that  illustration. 

^ETSTAN  :  ON :  NORP     »J<hENRIE  VS  REX  AN        IT 

British  Museum.  PI.  V.,  No.  10.  From  the 
Marsham,  1888,  and  Montagu,  1897,  Sales. 

>{<ETSTAN  :  ON    ...  IV 

Bindon-Blood  Sale,  1856  ;  Whitbourn  Sale, 
1869. 

*ETSTAN  0>^N  NORPIE  IiENRI  258 

A .   Peckover.     PI.  VI,  No.  5.     Obverse,  two 

quatrefoils  before    the    sceptre.      Keverse, 

•fcN  NOEPIE  in  the  inner  circle.     Found 

in    ballast  which    had   been    brought  from 

Peterborough. 

*EDST[AN]  ON  NOE  •  ^hENRIEVS  255 

L.  A.  Lawrence  ;  22  grs.  As  to  this  moneyer, 
fee  above.  The  missing  letters  are  supplied 
fiom  numerous  readings  on  coins  of  the  same 
moneyer  in  the  lollowiug  reign. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       337 

>I«FRELI>E  ON  NOE  *HENRI  EE  254 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  From  the  Durden  Sale,  1892. 

*HOPORD  0  NOEDI  *HNRI ...  251 

i 

T.  Bliss.  Engraved  Num.  Chron.,  1881, 
PI.  III.,  No.  1.  From  the  Nottingham  find, 
1881,  and  the  Toplis  and  Montagu  collec- 
tions. A  HO  FORD,  probably  this  moneyer's 
father,  coined  here  for  William  I.  The 
ducal  house  of  Howard  is  descended  from 
William  Howard,  of  Wigenhali,  Norfolk, 
who  rose  to  be  Chief  Justice  of  the  Common 
Pleas  in  1297,  and  who,  probably  because  of 
the  similarity  of  the  name  Howard  to  Here- 
ward,  was  by  the  inventive  genius  of  the 
sixteenth-century  heralds,  folio  wed  to-day  by 
Burke,  claimed  as  a  descendant  of  Hereward 
the  Wake.  But  the  existence  of  Howords 
as  royal  moneyers  of  Norwich  in  the  reigns  of 
William  I  and  Henry  I  now  tells  us  the  true 
origin  and  important  status  of  the  family  at 
the  date  of  the  Conquest. 

*IHOPORD  NORDE*  »!«HENRI  REX        254 

S.  Smith.  The  reverse  legend  is  evidently 
blundered,  or,  perhaps,  twice  struck,  but 
ON  is  sometimes  purposely  omitted,  see 
page  31,  and  the  folio  whig  coin. 

•frHOPOED  NORDE  *HENRI  EEX        254 

E.  T.  Corfield.     The  0  for  ON  is  omitted. 

^HOPOED  O  NOEDPI  *HENEI  EEX         253 

B.  Roth.     From  the  Montagu,  1897,  Sale,  £2. 

DO  NORDPI  253 

Bergne  Sale,  1873. 


338  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

*OSB[EE]N  ON  NOE  *hENEI  EE  .          252 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton  ;  J.  Verity.  21  £  grs., 
from  the  Allen  Sale,  1898.  The  name 
appears  at  Thetford  on  coins  of  Ethelred  II. 
A  Richard  Fitz  Osbern,  probably  the 
EICAED  on  contemporary  Norwich  coins, 
and  son  of  this  moneyer,  held  a  fief  from 
Hugh  Bigod  in  1165. 


.  .  .  BEEN  ON  NOE  252 

Whitbourn  Sale,  1869. 

>K>TEE  :  ON  [NO]EPIE  .  I\ENEI  .  .  S  255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens.  OTEE  appears 
on  Norwich  coins  of  the  Williams,  and 
OTEEEftE  on  the  first  type  of  Stephen.  The 
latter  form  probably  stands  for  the  Saxon 
Otercbeld,  i.e.  Oter  the  childe,  and  means 
either  the  eldest  son  of  Oter  =  Oter  junior, 
or  Oter  the  freeman  or  squire. 


0  NOEDPIT  ^HENEI  EEX  EN          253 

British  Museum.  Engraved  Hawkins,  253. 
The  E  and  T  in  the  reverse  legend  were 
perhaps  transposed  in  the  punching  of  the 
die,  but  see  a  similar  error  p.  335. 


ON    .....  ^hEN  .  .    EEX  A        IV 

British  Museum.  This  appropriation  is  doubtful. 


ON  :  NOE  .  .  *I\ENEIEVS  255 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 
This  moneyer  coined  also  as  StvlTEIE  and 
SIIvRIE  for  Stephen. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    KEIGX   OF    HKXRY  I.       339 

*SVNSMAN  :  ON  :  NOR  [^hENjRIEVS  :        255 

L.  A.  Lawrence,  22  grs.  ;  Watford  find.     This 
moneyer  coined  as  SVNFMAN  for  Stephen. 

*SVS  .  MAN  ON  NORP  *hENRIEYS  255 

Watford  find,  3  specimens. 


NORPI  .....  IEVS  255 

Sir  John  Evans. 


»J<VLFEhITEL  ON  NOB  ^fiENEIEVS  R        265 

Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  Mr.  F.  Jenkinson 
has  supplied  the  readings  of  the  coins  in  the 
Cambridge  Museums.  As  to  this  moneyer 
see  before. 


»J<PILliEMAE  ON  NOR  >£<I\ENRI  REX         252 

S.  Smith  ;  Loscombe  Sale,  1855.  The 
moneyer's  name  is  probably  a  contraction 
for  William  fitz  Hermer,  or,  as  "  William 
the  man  of  Hermer  [?  de  Ferrers]"  held 
one  house  in  Norwich  in  1086,  perhaps  for 
"  Wills  ho  Herm  "  as  written  in  Domesday. 

»J<PVLFRIE 

See  under  Nottingham,  pages  350-51. 

.  .  IPOD  O  NORDP  .  >J<HENRI  R  .  .         253 

T.  Bliss.     Perhaps  SIPOD  or  even  HOPORD. 

4<  ......    NORPI  ȣI\EN  .....  255 

C.  M.  Crompton  Roberts  ;  Tyssen  Sale,  1802  ; 
Benwell  Sale,  1849;  Brown  Sale,  1869; 
Toplis  Sale,  1890. 

The  coins  of  type  262  assigned  by  Hawkins  to  this 
mint  are  of  Northampton. 


340 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


NOTTINGHAM. 

SNOTINGAHAM,     SNOTTENGSHAM,     SNODENGHAM,      NOTTINGAMIA, 
NOTINGEHAM  ;      Domesday,     SNOTINGEHAM  ;      Pipe     Roll, 

NOTINGEHAM. 


Nottingham,  or,  as  its  Saxon  name  implies,  "  the  place 
of  caves,"  first  enters  the  pages  of  authentic  history  in  the 
Chronicle  of  Ethelwerd  under  the  year  868,  when  the 
Danes  '"'measured  out  their  camp  in  a  place  called 
Snotingaham,  and  there  they  passed  the  winter,  and 
Burgred,  King  of  the  Mercians,  with  his  nobles,  consented 
to  their  remaining  without  opposition."  According  to 
the  Saxon  Chronicle,  however,  the  invaders  were  besieged 
there  by  Burgred,  assisted  by  King  Ethelred  and  Alfred 
his  brother,  but  without  avail.  In  922,  Edward  the 
Elder  came  with  his  forces  to  Nottingham  and  "  took 
possession  of  the  town,  and  commanded  it  to  be  repaired 
and  occupied  as  well  by  English  as  by  Danes,"  and  in 
924  he  returned  and  commanded  a  burg  to  be  built  "  on 
the  south  side  of  the  river  opposite  the  other  and  a  bridge 
over  the  Trent  between  the  two  towns."  As  Bridgford, 
over  the  Trent,  is  mentioned  in  Domesday,  it  no  doubt 
takes  its  name  from  this,  one  of  the  earliest,  if  not  the 
earliest,  of  our  recorded  Anglo-Saxon  bridges.  But  the 
town — now  known  as  one  of  the  five  Danish  burgs — fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  Danes,  and  again,  in  941,  was 
retaken  by  the  Saxons  under  King  Edmund. 

1067?  The  Castle  [probably  the  Saxon  burh]  and 
County  of  Nottingham  were  committed  to  the  custody 
of  Ralph,  son  of  Hubert  de  Rye.  (Marianus.) 

1068.  "The  King  then  built  a  Castle  at  Nottingham, 
which  he  committed  to  the  custody  of  William 
Peverell."  (Orderic.) 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       341 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of  King  Edward 
there  were  in  the  burg  of  Nottingham  173  burgesses 
and  19  bondsmen.  To  this  burg  adjoined  certain 
lands  and  woods.  "  These  lands  were  partitioned 
amongst38  burgesses, andfrom  the  land  tax  and  services 
of  the  burgesses  returned  75  shillings  and  7  pence  and 
from  two  moneyers  40  shillings.  Therein  Earl  Tostig 
had  1  carucate  of  land,  from  which  land  the  King 
had  sow,  the  two  denarii,  and  the  Earl  himself  the 
third.  When  Hugh  fitz  Baldric  the  Sheriff  came, 
there  were  still  136  men,  but  now  there  are  16  fewer. 
Yet  Hugh  himself  built  13  houses  on  the  land  of  the 
Earl,  in  the  new  burg,  including  them  in  thejirma  of 
the  old  burg.  The  Trent  fisheries  and  navigation, 
the  [Fosse]  Road  to  York  and  the  fosse  of  the  burg 
are  referred  to  in  detail.  In  the  time  of  King  Edward 
Nottingham  paid  £18,  now  it  pays  £30  and  £10  from 
the  mint.  William  Peverell  has  48  houses  of  mer- 
chants, 12  houses  of  horsemen  [?  Normans]  and  8 
bondsmen,  and  the  King  granted  10  acres  of  land 
to  him  to  make  the  pomerium.  [Not  an  orchard  as 
hitherto  rendered,  but  the  right  to  clear  the  ground 
for  the  space  of  a  bow-shot  around  the  castle  walls.] 

1107-10.  William  Peverell  witnesses  the  King's  charter 
to  St.  Mary's,  Bee,  at  Fishley,  Norfolk.  (Docs,  in 
France.) 

1108.  January — May.     Probable  date  of  his  foundation 
charter  of  Lenton  Priory. 

1108-10.  He  grants  the  church  of  Eyam  to  Lenton  and 
witnesses  the  King's  confirmation  charter  to  Lenton 
and  to  Cluny  Abbey.  (Monasticon  and  Docs,  in 
France.) 

1 109.  October  16.     The  King  held  a  Council  at  Notting- 
ham Castle.     (Charter  to  Durham.) 

1111.  At  Reading  witnesses  Henry's  Charter  to  Colne 
Priory.  (Monasticon.) 

1113.  In  Normandy  witnesses   Henry's  charter   to  St. 
Evroul  at  Rouen  Castle.     (Docs,  in  France.) 

1114.  January.     Death  of  William  Peverell  I. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— William  Peverell  [II]  of  Notting- 
ham accounts  for  £28  6s.  8d.  for  a  plea  of  forestry 
pays  £11  13s.  4d.  and  owes  £11 13s.  4d.  He  receives 
the  return  of  a  plea  of  murder  in  the  Risechve 
[?  Rushcliffe]  "  wapentake."  The  monks  of  Notting- 
ham [?  Lenton]  are  mentioned— also  "Adelma  [widow 


VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


Y  Y 


3J2  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

of  the  first  Peverell]  as  mother  of  William  Peverell  of 
Nottingham."  "  Osgot,  priest  of  Daimfeld  [?  Daffield] 
owes  60  shillings  on  a  plea  of  false  pennies.  Sweiu 
of  the  Gate  (de  Porta)  owes  100  shillings  on  a  plea  of 
Ralph  Basset  "  (the  King's  Justice). 

1131.  September  8.  William  Peverell  witnesses  the 
charter  to  Salisbury  at  the  great  Council  at  North- 
ampton. (Monasticon.) 

Whether  the  mint  of  Nottingham  was  established  by 
Edward  the  Elder,  when  in  922  he  rebuilt  the  town  on 
its  recovery  from  the  Danes,  it  is  difficult  to  say,  for  with 
one  exception  the  names  of  the  mints  are  omitted  from  his 
coins,  but  it  was  certainly  in  operation  during  the  reign 
of  his  successor,  Athelstan.  Ethelred  II's  money  also 
bears  the  name  of  this  mint,  and  it  was  continued  under 
his  successors. 

In  the  time  of  the  Confessor  we  learn  from  Domesday 
that  the  mint  was  allowed  two  moneyers  who  paid  40s. 
between  them,  but  in  1086  the  Conqueror  had  increased 
their  firma  to  £10.  This  evidences  the  fact  that  it  was 
then  a  Royal  mint,  and  as  such  its  output  was  practically 
continuous. 

There  are  few  Norman  baronial  names  so  familiar  to 
us  as  that  of  Peverell  of  Nottingham  and  the  Peak,  and 
yet  when  we  weigh  what  information  we  have  of  the  family 
it  is  remarkable  that  it  should  be  so  little.  The  writer 
has  dealt  elsewhere  with  this  subject  [British  Archaeologi- 
cal Association's  Proceedings,  1899,  p.  273],  and  it  is 
sufficient  here  to  say  that  the  founder  of  the  Nottingham 
and  senior  English  branch  of  the  family  was  William 
Peverell  I,  who  was  certainly  not  the  natural  son  of  the 
Conqueror,  as  we  used  to  be  told  he  was,  although  prob- 
ably a  relative  and  perhaps  a  son,  or  son-in-law,  of  Queen 
Matilda  by  her  first  marriage.  From  Domesday  it 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      343 

would  appear  that  he  held  what  was  practically  one- 
third  of  the  burg,  and  although  he  did  not  then  hold 
the  tertius  denarius  of  it,  its  subsequent  grant  to  him 
might  almost  be  expected  to  follow  as  a  natural  sequence. 
That  he  did  obtain  itfwe  know,  or  at  least  have  every 
reason  to  believe,  but  when,  it  is  difficult  to  say.  The 
Nottingham  coinage  during  the  reigns  of  the  two  Williams 
does  not  help  us  to  arrive  at  the  date,  for  the  output  is 
constant,  and  therefore,  provided  he  remained  in  his 
lordship,  it  would  ma.ke  no  difference  to  the  numis- 
matic evidence  whether  the  mint  retained  its  royal 
character  or  had  been  included  in  the  grant  of  the  town 
to  him. 

It  is,  however,  noticeable  that  throughout  the  reigns 
of  William  I  and  II  his  name  appears  upon  the  charters 
as  merely  "  William  Peverell,"  but  in  that  of  Henry  I 
the  title  "de  Nottingham"  is  usually  appended.  This, 
coupled  with  the  facts  that  immediately  upon  the  accession 
of  Henry  the  output  of  the  mint  assumes  an  intermittent 
character,  and  the  number  of  moneyers  is  throughout  the 
reign  reduced  to  one,  strongly  suggests  that  the  town  of 
Nottingham,  including  its  mint,  was  granted  to  him  upon 
that  occasion.  This,  at  least,  is  certain,  that  between  the 
date  of  Domesday  and  that  of  the  Lenton  charter,  1108, 
the  Trent  fisheries,  attached  to  the  burg,  had  passed  from 
the  King  to  him,  and  that  in  1152  the  then  Peverell  held 
the  burg  and  castle  of  Nottingham  as  his  fee. 

But  where  was  William  Peverell  between  the  years 
11UO  and  1107?  His  name  does  not  appear  upon  any  of 
the  English  charters  nor  in  the  pages  of  the  chroniclers 
during  this  period,  or  at  least  so  far  as  an  almost  exhaus- 
tive search  has  disclosed.  For  the  first  time  since  its 
institution,  if  we  may  accept  the  negative  evidence  of  the 


344  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

absence  of  any  coins  of  types  251,  254,  253,  and  256,  the 
mint  of  Nottingham  is  closed.  Tradition  tells  us  that  he 
joined  the  Crusades,  and  it  is  significant  that  when  in 
1107-1114  his  name  suddenly  returns  into  our  charters 
it  is  usually  accompanied  by  that  of  Earl  Simon  of  North- 
ampton until  the  death  of  the  latter  in  1109.  It  is  almost 
impossible  to  imagine  that  if  Peverell  had  been  in  England 
or  Normandy  he  would  not  have  been  present  at  the 
battle  of  Tinchebrai,  and  if  present,  that  his  name  would  not 
have  been  recorded  in  the  list  of  the  principal  combatants, 
and  yet  history  and  charters  alike  are  silent  as  to  his 
movements.  It  is  true  that  there  are  two  charters  granted 
in  Normandy  which  bear  the  name  of  William  Peverell, 
but  this  was  in  all  probability  his  cousin  and  namesake  of 
Dover;  but  if  not,  as  their  date  is  about  the  year  1103, 
when  Earl  Simon  joined  the  Crusades,  they  only  tend  to 
prove  the  absence  of  "William  Peverell  from  England — 
perhaps  whilst  upon  his  journey  across  Europe.  All  these 
facts,  when  marshalled  together,  raise  a  structure  of 
probability  that  the  three  chief  castellans  and  neighbours 
of  Mercia,  Earl  Simon  of  Northampton  and  Huntingdon, 
Ivo  de  Grantmesnil  of  Leicester  and  William  Peverell  of 
Nottingham,  took  the  Cross  and  journeyed  to  Jerusalem 
in  1102-3,  one  dying  by  the  wayside,  but  the  other  two 
returning  after  the  great  victory  of  1106,  and  arriving 
together,  first  in  Normandy  in  the  following  year  and  later 
in  England,  perhaps  in  January,  1108.  This  probability  is 
again  supported  by  the  parallel  between  Peverell  and  Earl 
Simon,  for  just  as  the  first  act  of  Earl  Simon,  as  a  thank- 
offering  for  his  safe  return,  was  to  found  St.  Andrew's 
Priory  at  Northampton,  so  that  of  William  Peverell  was 
to  found  Lenton  Priory  at  Nottingham.  It  is  in  this 
foundation  charter  that  the  old  initial  S  in  the  name  of 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  T.       345 

Nottingham  is  for  the  first  time  dropped.  Its  date  has 
been  assigned  to  various  years  between  1100  and  1108, 
but  its  true  date  must  be  late  in  1107  or  early  in  1108  ; 
one  reason  amongst  others  being  that  Earl  Simon,  who 
witnessed  it,  did  not  return  to  England  until  late  in  1107, 
and  Gerard,  Archbishop  of  York,  another  of  the  witnesses, 
died  "before  Pentecost,"  1108. 

That  William  Peverell  was  in  England  and  at  Henry's 
Court  at  Reading  in  1111  is  clearly  proved  by  the  dated 
charter  to  Colne  Priory,  and  he  would  surely  entertain 
the  King  on  his  visit  in  October,  1109;  therefore  it  is 
probable  that  he  resided  at  Nottingham  from  1108  to  1112, 
and  coincidently  with  this  residence,  type  257  (1110-1112), 
although  the  attribution  of  the  coins  is  not  quite  beyond 
question,  appears  from  the  Nottingham  mint.  He,  how- 
ever, crossed  to  Normandy  in  1112-1113,  for  he  wit- 
nessed the  St.  Evroul  charter  at  Rouen  of  that  date,  and 
he  died  in  January,  1114,  so  we  have  no  more  coins  of 
this  mint  during  his  lifetime. 

He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  William  Peverell  II,  who 
is  mentioned  in  the  Lenton  charter.  But  as  his  name 
would  seem  to  be  absent  from  our  English  charters  in  the 
meantime,  and  as  the  Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  in  1130  he 
had  not  yet  paid  off  the  instalments  due  upon  his  succession 
to  his  Forestry  rights  over  the  Peak  and  in  Nottingham- 
shire, we  may  safely  accept  the  evidence  of  our  coins  and 
assume  that  he  remained  in  Normandy  until  1120  and 
returned  to  England  with  the  King  in  November  of  that 
year.  The  mint  re-opens  with  type  IV  (1121-1123),  and 
also  gives  us  types  265  (1126-1129)  and  262  (1129-1131), 
and  during  the  issue  of  the  latter  type  the  Pipe  Roll  proves 
that  Peverell  was  within  his  lordship. 

The  two    consecutive    entries   in    the  1130    Roll   that 


346  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Osgot,  priest  of  Duffield,  and  Swein  of  the  Gate  [of 
Nottingham],  had  been  amerced,  the  former  in  sixty 
shillings  for  false  pennies,  and  the  latter  in  one  hundred 
shillings  on  a  plea  of  Ralph  Basset,  the  King's  Justice, 
probably  refer,  in  Osgot's  case,  to  a  fine  levied  by  the 
Exchequer  upon  him  to  make  good  certain  payments 
made  by  him  in  debased  or  light-weight  money  (see 
page  8),  but  in  that  of  Swein  to  an  amercement  or  tine 
levied  upon  him  as  moneyer.  His  name,  Swein  of  the 
Gate,  suggests  that  the  mint,  as  was  provided  by 
Ethelred's  Institutes  of  London  (page  278),  was  at  the 
town  gate,  and  he  was,  of  course,  the  S[PJEINE  on  type 
262  (1129-1131);  but  his  must  have  been  a  very  minor 
offence,  for  when  the  mint  was  reopened  in  Stephen's 
reign  we  find  him  again  the  Nottingham  moneyer,  which 
could  not  have  been  the  case  had  he  suffered  the  customary 
penal  punishment  for  false  coining. 

But  after  type  262  (1129-1131)  the  coinage  is  again  in 
abeyance,  for  the  plentiful  type  255,  the  last  of  the  reign, 
seems  to  be  absent  from  Nottingham.  In  September,  1131, 
"William  Peverell  witnessed  the  Salisbury  charter  at 
Northampton,  and  that  is  the  last  we  ever  hear  of  him. 
To  prove  that  he  died  before  the  accession  of  Stephen 
in  1135  is  not  difficult,  for  the  "William  Peverell  de 
Nottingham "  who  witnessed  that  King's  Charter  of 
Liberties,  as  already  a  baron  early  in  1136  (see  Geoffrey 
de  Mandeville,  p.  263),  was  the  same  whom  Orderic,  in 
1138,  calls  "  the  young  William,  surnamed  Peverell," 
and  whom  King  Stephen  addresses  in  a  charter  to  Lenton 
as  William  Peverell  "  junior."  Hence,  to  speak  of  the 
Peverell,  who  was  concerned  in  the  Lenton  charter  of 
1108,  some  thirty  years  afterwards  as  "the  young 
William  "  would  be  impossible.  In  view,  therefore,  of  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       347 

negative  evidence  of  the  closing  of  the  Nottingham  mint 
in  1131,  and  the  affirmative  evidence  of  the  death  of 
William  Peverell  II  at  some  time  between  that  date  and 
1135,  we  may  venture  ^  to  associate  cause  with  effect  and 
assign  its  date  to  the  close  of  the  year  1131,  thus 
accounting  for  the  cessation  of  coinage  at  Nottingham. 

In  January,  1880,  one  of  the  most  historically  interest- 
ing of  our  finds  of  English  coins  occurred  during  exca- 
vations for  cellars  in  Bridlesmith  Gate,  Nottingham.  The 
writer,  being  in  Nottingham  at  the  time,  was,  by  the 
courtesy  of  the  late  Mr.  Toplis,  enabled  to  examine  the 
bulk  of  the  find,  and  since  then  Mr.  Wallis,  of  the  Not- 
tingham Castle  Museum,  Mr.  S.  Page,  and  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Numismatic  Society,  have  submitted  for  his 
inspection  what,  he  believes,  practically  represent  the 
remainder  of  the  hoard.  It  contained  about  150  coins 
of  the  reign  of  Stephen,  in  which  period  its  special 
interest  is  centred,  and  23  of  Henry  I ;  namely,  one 
each  of  types  251  and  IV,  probably  then  only  of 
intrinsic,  not  current  value,  and  20  of  type  255  (1131- 
1135).  The  hoard  itself  furnishes  curious  and  definite 
internal  evidence  that  its  date  of  deposit  was  at  some 
time  between  June  and  December,  1141,  but  as  the  evi- 
dence of  it  is  outside  the  province  of  this  treatise,  perhaps 
the  reader  will,  in  this  instance,  accept  the  dictum.  But 
the  coins  of  the  find  present  a  peculiar  and  unique  feature 
by  which  most  of  them  may  be  identified  in  the  trays  of 
a  collection  at  sight.  They  have  been  subjected,  at  some 
period  of  their  existence,  to  an  intense  heat  and  are,  in 
consequence,  blistered  and  cockled  to  such  an  extent  as, 
in  many  instances,  to  assume  a  saucer-like  form.  This 
was  the  more  noticeable  at  the  time  of  their  discovery,  as 
many  have  since  been  straightened,  and  not  a  few  broken 


348  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

in  the  attempted  operation,  but  a  glance  at  the  100 
specimens  carefully  preserved  by  Mr.  Wallis  at  the 
deservedly  popular  Museum  of  Art  at  Nottingham  will 
amply  satisfy  the  curious  in  this  respect. 

Such  was  the  hoard  as  we  found  it  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  The  following  is  the  contemporary  account 
of  its  loss  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  it  is  odd  that  no 
one  has  hitherto  connected  ths  two  incidents. 

"Before  the  Nativity  of  St.  Mary,  September  8th,  Robert, 
son  of  King  Henry,  instigated  by  Ralph  Paynell,  took  with  him 
the  Knights  of  the  Earl  of  Warwick,  and  with  those  he  drew 
out  of  Gloucestershire,  and  a  great  body  of  common  soldiers, 
made  a  sudden  attack  on  the  town  of  Nottingham,  and,  finding 
there  was  no  force  to  defend  it,  commenced  plundering  it,  the 
townsmen  from  all  quarters  taking  refuge  in  the  churches. 
One  of  these,  who  was  reported  to  be  a  wealthy  man  ;  having 
been  laid  hold  of,  was  led  tightly  bound  to  his  house  that  he 
might  be  forced  to  give  up  his  money.  The  man  conducted  the 
freebooters,  over  greedy  for  spoil,  into  a  chamber  underground 
where  all  his  household  wealth  was  supposed  to  be  stored.  But 
while  they  were  intent  upon  pillage  and  breaking  open  doors  and 
locks,  he  cunningly  slipped  away,  and  gaining  the  chambers,  and 
then  the  hall,  closed  all  the  doors  behind  them  and  fastened 
them  with  bolts.  He  tben  set  fire  to  his  house  and  consigned 
the  buildings  and  all  his  riches,  together  with  the  robbers,  to 
the  flames.  It  is  reported  that  more  than  thirty  men  who  were 
in  the  cellar  perished  by  the  fire,  and  some  say  that  it  spread 
through  the  whole  town  and  burnt  it  to  the  ground  ;  for  the 
knights  and  the  whole  army  swore  that  they  were  guiltless  of 
having  set  it  on  fire.  Thus  the  whole  place  was  consumed,  and 
all  who  could  be  taken  outside  the  churches  were  carried  into 
captivity  ;  pome  of  them  as  far  as  Gloucester.  The  rest  of  the 
common  people,  men,  women,  and  children,  who  had  fled  to  the 
churches,  not  dariug  to  come  forth  for  fear  of  being  taken  by 
the  enemy,  nearly  all  perished  as  the  churches  fell  a  prey  to 
the  raging  conflagration.  .  .  .  Thus  Nottingham  was  laid  in 
ruins  ;  a  most  noble  town  which,  from  the  time  of  the  Norman 
Conquest  of  England  to  the  present,  had  flourished  in  the 
greatest  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  abounded  in  wealth  of  all 
kinds  and  a  numerous  population."  (Continuator  of  Florence  ; 
Forester.) 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       349 

The  chronicler  rarely  gives  dates,  and  some  of  the 
events  amongst  which  the  incident  is  inserted  occurred 
in  the  year  1140,  but  that  date  is  improbable,  as  the  Earl 
of  Warwick  had  not  then  joined  the  cause  of  the  Empress, 
and  recent  historians  Kave  proved  its  true  date  to  be  Sep- 
tember, 1141,  when  William  Peverell  III  having  been 
taken  prisoner  at  the  battle  of  Lincoln,  and  Nottingham 
therefore  having  "  no  force  to  defend  it,"  the  Earl  of 
Gloucester  carried  out  the  raid  during  the  siege  of  Win- 
chester. This  exactly  coincides  with  the  date  of  deposit 
of  the  hoard  as  previously  mentioned. 

Further  comment  upon  this  story  is  scarcely  necessarv, 
but  as  it  could  be  suggested  that  the  burning  of  the  town 
might  account  for  the  loss  of  several  similar  hoards,  it 
may  be  pointed  out  that  a  hall  and  a  cellar,  or  crypt,  to  a 
private  house,  even  in  Nottingham,  "  the  City  of  Caves," 
must  have  been  at  that  date  unheard  of.  Therefore,  when 
we  remember  that  the  then  moneyer,  Swein,  was  described 
in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  as  "  of  the  Gate,"  that  the  treasure 
was  discovered  in  excavating  in  the  Bridlesmith  Gate, 
where,  by  the  way,  tradition  says  the  old  mint  was,  that 
the  gate,  according  to  the  Institutes  of  Ethelred  II,  was 
the  place  of  coinage,  and  finally  that  the  coins  bearing 
Swein's  name  (about  one-sixth  of  the  total  number)  were, 
unlike  most  of  the  rest,  as  fresh  as  from  the  die,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  believe  that  "  the  freebooters,  over  greedy 
for  spoil,"  as  might  be  expected,  selected  the  official  of 
the  mint  and  his  stock  lor  the  first  objects  of  their 
plunder. 

Although  the  moneyers  of  Nottingham  are  recorded 
in  the  1156-7  Pipe  Roll  as  still  owing  a  debt  or  fine  of 
43  marks  of  silver,  the  mint  seems  to  have  been  finally 
closed  upon,  and  by,  the  outlawry  of  the  last  of  the 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  %  *• 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


Peverells  in  1154,  when  the  burg  and  the  Trent  fisheries 
reverted  to  the  King. 

COINS. 


.  .  HE  :  ON  :  SNOT  ^hENEI  ...    AN      IV 


British  Museum.     The  H  is  no  doubt  intended 
for  N,  and  the  name  probably  ALPINE. 


»I«AL  ......     SNOTEN  *hENRIEVS  E     265 

British  Museum. 

*ALARIE  ON  SNOTN  265 

Durrant  Sale,  1847.  As  this  reading  of  the 
moneyer's  name  was  long  before  Mr.Grueber, 
in  the  Montagu  catalogue,  revolutionized 
the  art  of  cataloguing,  it  is  not  reliable. 


ON  :  SNO  :  ^hENBlEVS  E      262 

J.  Verity.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

.  .  P  .  .  NE  ON  :  SNO  :  *hENRIEVS  E       262 

Watford  find.     Mr.  Rashleigh  read  the  P  as  O. 

ȣPVLPRIE  ON  SNOR  ^hEJvRIE  RE  :        257 

British  Museum.  Fig.  G,  page  58.  PL  VIII, 
No.  5.  Engraved  Hawkins,  257.  This 
moneyer  coined  in  the  previous  reign  as 
tfrPVLFEU:  ON  SNOTJNE.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  with  some  hesitation  that  this  coin  is 
removed  from  its  old  appropriation  to  Nor- 
wich. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       351 

*PVLFRIE  ON    .  .  OE  *hENRI  EE  257 

Engraved  Ruding,  Sup.,  ii.,  2,  4.  Probably 
the  above  coin.  From  the  Sharp  collection 
and  Wallsop  finds. 

Tyesen  Sale,  \  802.  36* 


OXFORD. 

OXNAFORD,  OXANFORD,  OXENFOBD,  OXINEFOBD,  OXONIUM  ;  Early 
Saxon,  ORSNAFOROA;  Domesday  and  Pipe  Roll,  OXKNK- 
FORD. 

According  to  Roger  of  Wendover,  who,  however,  was 
but  a  thirteenth-century  chronicler,  there  was  already  a 
City  of  Oxford  in  the  early  Saxon  days  of  the  legend  of 
St.  Frideswide,  and  from  the  superstition  attached  to  that 
legend,  under  the  year  1111,  he  tells  us,  "the  Kings  of 
England  have  always  been  afraid  to  enter  this  city,  for 
it  is  said  to  be  fatal  to  them  and  they  are  unwilling 
to  test  the  truth  of  it  at  their  own  peril " ;  but  this, 
however,  is  not  strictly  accurate,  unless  it  is  copied  from 
some  ancient  record  of  a  date  prior  to  the  Conquest. 
Perhaps  its  severance  from  the  personal  influence  of  the 
Saxon  Kings  may,  in  a  measure,  account  for  the  total 
omission  of  Oxford  from  the  pages  of  Bede  or  any  of 
our  early  chronicles,  for  we  find  no  mention  of  it  until, 
under  the  year  910,  one  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Saxon 
Chronicle  records  that,  on  the  death  of  Ethelred  of 
Mercia,  Edward  the  Elder  took  possession  of  Oxford. 
In  1009  the  Danes  "took  their  way  to  Oxford  and 
burned  the  city,"  and  four  years  later  they  compelled 
the  townsmen  to  submit  and  deliver  hostages.  Here 


352.  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Harold  I  was  elected   King  by  the  Witan,  and  here,  in 
1040,  he  died. 

When  and  by  whom  the  great  University  was  founded 
are  matters  outside  the  scope  of  these  pages. 

1071.  King  William  builds  Oxford  Castle  and  entrusts  it 
to  Robert  D'Oilli. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of  the  Confessor 
Oxford  paid  tax  of  £20  and  6  sextaries  of  honey,  and 
to  Earl  Algar  £10.  When  the  King  called  out  his 
forces  20  burgesses  went  with  him,  or  paid  £20  to 
exempt  all.  Now  Oxford  pays  £60  by  number  of  20 
[pennies]  to  the  ounce.  There  are  243  houses  pay- 
ing taxes,  and  in  addition  478  so  waste  and  destroyed 
as  to  be  unable  to  pay.  The  walls  of  the  city  are 
more  than  once  referred  to,  and  provision  is  made  for 
their  repair  by  the  burgesses.  A  list  of  those  bur- 
gesses who  were  tenants  in  capite  or  freeholders  in 
the  city — i.  «.,  who  held  houses  of  the  King  for  their 
lives  ('•  habuit  dum  vixit  ") — is  given.  Under  "  Terra 
Regis  "  the  county  of  Oxford  pays  a  treble  fir  ma  noctis, 
that  is  £150  ;  from  the  increase  ("  augmento,"  but 
?atm/io),£25by  weight;  from  the  burg, £20  by  weight; 
from  the  mint,  £20  [by  weight]  in  pennies  [credited 
at]  20  to  the  ounce  ;  also  certain  other  contributions. 

1090.  The  Abbot  of  Abingdon  makes  a  canal  to  improve 
the  navigation  of  the  "  Thames  "  to  Oxford. 

1111.  At  an  enquiry  held  at  the  house  of  Harding  at 
Oxford  the  canal  tolls  are  formulated. 

"  Roger,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  gave  a  site  in  Oxford, 
where  the  body  of  the  virgin  St.  Frideswide  reposes 
(Christ  Church),  to  a  canon  named  Wimund,  who 
instituted  a  community  of  canons  there,  under  regular 
discipline,  and  was  himself  their  first  Prior."  (Wen- 
dover.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Robert  d'Oilli  II,  castellan  of 
Oxford,  has  but  recently  succeeded  to  his  possessions, 
probably  after  a  long  minority,  for  he  is  still  paying 
large  succession  fees.  He  is  sheriff,  and  owes  400 
marks  of  silver  for  the  gersoma.  The  work  of 
building  the  New  Hall  is  evidently  in  progress,  for 
Humphrey  the  mason  receives  £7  12s.  Id.  The  court 
has  lately  passed  through  Oxford.  Thirteen  preben- 
daries are  supported  out  of  the  county  returns.  The 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       353 

fisheries  and  the  mill  are  mentioned,  as  also  are  the 
guilds  of  the  cloth-weavers  and  cordwainers.  The 
city  contributes  £13  17s.  Od.  in  auxilium,  but  £10  is 
remitted  in  pardon  to  the  burgesses  by  the  King's 
writ. 

1133.     The  King  beld  his  Easter  Court  in  the  New  Hall 
at  Oxford.     (Huntingdon.) 


As  Mr.  Nicholson,  of  the  Bodleian  Library,  remarked 
to  the  writer,  the  earliest  extant  evidence  of  the  existence 
of  Oxford  is  to  be  found  upon  the  coins  of  Alfred  the 
Great  struck  at  "  OESNAFOEDA."  It  was  certainly  a 
royal  mint  in  those  days,  and  as  such  it  remained  through- 
out the  Saxon  period. 

In  the  reign  of  the  Confessor  its  output  was  consider- 
able, but  during  the  troubled  time  of  the  Conquest  Oxford 
suffered  so  severely  that  two-thirds  of  the  city,  according 
to  the  evidence  of  Domesday,  were  devastated.  This  was 
probably  in  1068,  for  one  of  the  MSS.  of  William  of 
Malmesbury  confuses  Oxford  with  Exeter  in  the  account 
of  the  Conqueror's  punishment  of  the  latter  city,  and  so 
it  suggests  that  the  two  incidents  were  perhaps  concurrent 
and  similar.  Hence  afterwards  the  mint  was  never  so 
prolific  as  in  Saxon  times. 

As  at  Lincoln  and  Norwich,  Oxford  being  a  royal  mint 
we  naturally  look  for  the  names  of  some  at  least  of  its 
moneyers  amongst  the  tenants  in  capite  given  in  Domes- 
day. One  instance  very  clearly  proves  the  suggestion 
given  under  Lincoln,  page  266,  that  the  title  monetarius 
was  not  customarily  adopted  where  the  person  was,  other- 
wise, well  known.  It  is  that  of  Swetman.  He  is  the 
only  one  in  the  list  who  is  styled  monetarius,  and  it  is 
obviously  because  there  is  another  of  the  same  name  who 
is  described  in  it  as  "  the  other  Swetman." 


3-34  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


Domesdaj  Extracts  from  the  List  of  Tenants  /-^""i68^0"  th*  , 

in  capite  in  Oxford. 

William  I. 

Smewine,    one     house,    which     pays 

nothing        .... 
Brictred   and   Derman,   one    house  of  <        T,T->-rnmT>Tm 

16  pence      ...  .1 

Svetman,  monetarius,  one  house  free,  "\ 

returning  40  pence .  .  .  Svet-  f         gpETM;AN 

man  has  two  houses  on  the  ( 

Wall  returning  8  shillings     .  ) 
Godwine,  one  house  free     . 
Vimar,  one  house  free 
Alwi,  one  house  free  . 


Such  was  the  constitution  of  the  mint  of  Oxford  until 
the  accession  of  Henry  I,  although  the  number  of 
money ers  was  being  gradually  reduced.  Upon  that 
event  the  first  type  of  the  new  reign,  251  (1100-1102), 
was  issued  as  before,  but  from  its  date,  so  far  as  we  know, 
the  mint  of  Oxford  must  have  been  entirely  closed  until 
the  year  1131. 

For  almost  thirty  years  no  money  seems  to  have  been 
issued  from  this,  a  royal  mint,  and  we  can  only  endeavour 
to  account  for  it  by  comparisons  with  the  contemporary 
history  of  other  towns.  Domesday  has  told  us  that  the 
county  had  to  return  certain  fixed  payments,  which  in- 
cluded ,£20  from  the  mint,  and  as  Oxford  itself  was  the 
only  mint  town  within  it,  the  moneyers  of  that  mint 
were  of  course  responsible  for  the  payment,  whether  it 
was  in  actual  operation  or  not.  Hence,  if  for  some  cause 
or  another  the  King  withheld  his  writ  authorising  coinage, 
it  would  merely  be  a  deprivation  of  a  privilege  without 
loss  to  his  Exchequer,  for  the  citizens  would  still  have  to 
make  good  the  £20.  We  have  already  seen  that  at  Dover 
and  Lewes,  where  the  burgesses  held  their  towns  upon  the 
custom  of  defending  the  shores  against  an  invasion,  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       355 

coinage  was  similarly  stopped  during  the  issue  of  the 
same  type,  251  (1100-1102),  because  they  failed  in  their 
duty  and  deserved  the  King  for  Duke  Robert.  Therefore, 
as  Oxford's  duty  was  to  supply  20  burgesses  when  the 
King  called  out  his  forces,  we  may  almost  assume  that 
when  Duke  Robert  landed  at  Portsmouth  in  the  summer 
of  1101  and  marched  on  Winchester,  the  citizens  closed 
their  gates  against  Henry  and  declared  for  th^  Duke. 
England  was  then  almost  equally  divided  in  the  question 
of  the  succession,  and  Oxford,  after  suffering  so  much  at 
the  hands  of  the  first  Norman  King,  would  not  be  too 
ready  to  supply  her  burgesses  for  the  defence  of  his  son, 
even  though  the  choice  but  lay  between  the  two  brothers. 
Henry's  obvious  retaliation  would  be  the  punishment  of 
the  principal  citizens  and  the  withdrawal  of  their  privi- 
leges. Such  would  include  the  coinage,  and  so  the  mint 
would  remain  dormant  until  revived  by  writ  or  charter. 
That  something  of  this  sort  did  occur  is  almost  certain, 
because  in  the  1129-30  Pipe  Roil,  when  the  coinage 
was  still  in  abeyance,  we  have  the  entry  that  the  city 
contributed  £13  17s.  in  auxilium,  but  of  it  was  remitted 
"  in  pardon  by  writ  of  the  King  to  the  burgesses  of  Oxford 
£10."  The  entry  is  under  the  "  nova  placita"  which 
refer  to  the  accounts  for  the  half-year  from  Easter  to 
Michaelmas,  and  so  the  £10  may  be  the  current  half  of 
the  £20  referred  to  in  Domesday  as  the  contribution  of  the 
mint ;  but  that  it  refers  to  the  firma  of  the  mint  itself  is 
proved  by  the  similar  cases  of  Colchester,  Dorchester,  Nor- 
wich, Shaftesbury,  Tarn  worth,  Thetford  and  Wallingford, 
all  of  which  were  in  that  particular  year  (1129-1130), 
closed,  or  partially  closed,  mints.  We  have,  therefore, 
some  documentary  evidence  at  least  to  support  the  apparent 
numismatic  evidence  that  the  mint  was  in  abeyance  from 


356 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE 


some  time  during  the  issue  of  type  251  (1100-1102)  until 
that  of  type  255  (1131-1135),  the  alpha  and  omega  of 
King  Henry's  types. 

At  the  date  of  the  Pipe  Roll  the  New  Hall  at  Oxford 
was  in  course  of  construction,  and  £7  12s.  Id.  was  spent 
upon  its  masonry.  In  1133  it  was  completed ;  so  Henry, 
no  doubt  to  celebrate  its  opening  ceremony,  held  his 
Easter  Court  within  it.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a 
mark  of  honour,  and  it  would  be  highly  improbable  that  so 
favoured  a  city  would  at  that  time,  at  least,  not  be  in  the 
full  enjoyment  of  all  its  privileges.  In  1129-30  he  had 
already  returned  either  the  half  or  the  whole  of  the  firma 
of  the  dormant  mint  to  the  citizens,  and  therefore  to  re- 
grant  the  privilege  of  coinage  was  really  to  his  own 
advantage,  for  he  would  no  longer  be  petitioned  to  make 
any  such  return.  Hence  the  mint  is  at  last  re-opened, 
and  type  255  (1131-1133)  is  issued  by  three  moneyers  at 
Oxford,  whose  coins  are  well  represented  to-day  in  our 
cabinets. 

To  reintroduce  the  art  of  coining,  there  is  little  doubt 
that  the  King  sent  his  London  moneyer  KAPVLF  to 
Oxford,  for  he  had  coined  at  London  in  several  of  the 
types  until  and  including  262  (1129-1131),  when  his 
name  disappears  from  that  mint,  and  simultaneously 
appears  at  Oxford  on  type  255  (1131-1135),  where  he 
remained  during  Stephen's  first,  but  finally  returned  to 
London  to  coin  in  one  of  his  later  types.  On  his  last 
type  (262)  of  Henry's  reign  in  London,  his  name  appears 
in  three  forms,  RAPVLF,  EAWLE,  and  KAVF,  and  in  the 
following  type  at  Oxford  (255)  as  EAPVLF  and  BAWLF, 
for  no  doubt  he  furnished  his  own  instructions  to  the 
King's  nurifaber  for  the  legends  on  his  dies.  In  the  1130 
Pipe  Roll  there  is  an  entry  under  Oxford  that  Ralph 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       357 

fitz  Araalr  paid  a  fee  of  half  a  mark  of  gold  for  his  land, 

because  he  had  traversed  against  William  of  London i.e., 

for  the  land  at  Oxford  which  he  had  acquired  from  or  ex- 
changed with  William  of  London  [?  William  Travers,  see 
page  312] — and  so,  as  we  have  the  coincidences  of  the  name 
of  Ralph  of  London  appearing  for  the  first  time  at  Oxford 
on  the  type  for  the  following  year,  arid  that  of  William  ap- 
pearing for  the  first  time  at  London  on  the  same  type,  it 
would  almost  appear  as  if  Ralph  the  moneyer  was  Ralph 
fitz  Amalr,  and  had  paid  the  fee  to  obtain  his  qualifica- 
tion for  the  office  as  a  tenant  in  capite  at  Oxford,  by 
exchanging  his"  own  house  at  London  for  that  of  William 
at  Oxford,  who,  no  doubt,  after  instruction,  succeeded  to 
his  office  in  London,  and  struck  the  WILLELMVS  ON  LVN 
coins.  As  the  fee  was  payable  after  the  exchange,  the  latter 
would  then  rightly  be  described  as  William  of  London. 
If  this  is  correct,  it  would  not  only  further  explain  the 
return  of  the  £10  to  the  citizens,  as  the  revival  of  the 
Oxford  mint  was  then  promised,  but  would  also  fix  the 
date  of  the  qualification  of  the  moneyer  immediately  prior 
to  the  issue  of  type  255  (1131-1135).  Such  a  qualifica- 
tion must  have  been  necessary,  or  Domesday's  list  of  the 
tenants  in  capite  would  not  have  included  the  names  of  all 
of  the  six  moneyers  then  coining  at  Oxford.  Ralph  is 
again  mentioned  in  a  list  of  the  King's  burgesses  of 
Oxford,  in  the  transcript  of  Stephen's  charter  to  Christ 
Church,  as  "Radulfus  Hons,"  which  latter  word  is 
probably  a  corruption  of  Mons  —  monetarists  (Monasticon). 
Ruding  quotes  the  mention  of  "  five  shillings  from  the 
land  of  Eadwin  the  moneyer,"  in  an  Abingdbn  charter  of 
1116,  and  of  "  land  held  by  Godwin  and  Brihtric,  money- 
ers," in  the  foundation  charter  of  Oseney  Abbey,  1129. 
The  first — which,  by  the  way,  Mr.  Spicer  corrects  to  "  five 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  3  A 


358  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

shillings  from  the  land  of  Edwin  the  moneyer  and  his 
brother  " — is  merely  the  description  of  the  land  which  was 
still  known  as  the  land  of  Edwin  the  moneyer  and  his 
brother,  although  the  former,  and  therefore  both,  had 
lived  in  the  days  of  the  Confessor  and  was  the  EADPIXE 
of  his  Oxford  coins.  This  was  the  usual  practice  in  legal 
documents  at  that  date  and  it  has  survived  until  modern 
times,  although  we  sometimes  prefix  "  now  or  formerly," 
and  in  the  Pipe  Rolls,  for  instance,  we  have  •'  the  land  of 
William  Peverell "  long  after  he  had  disappeared  from 
history.  The  second  instance,  "land  held  by  Godwin 
and  Brihtric,"  is  precisely  similar  and  almost  proves  the 
case,  for  in  the  charter  the  correct  reading  is  "  terras  quas 
tenuerunt."  Hence  the  "  Godwine  "  and  "  Brihtred  " 
of  Domesday  and  on  the  coins  of  William  I  have,  in  the 
course  of  copying,  forty-three  years  afterwards,  become 
"  Godwin  and  Brihtric/'  and  are  similarly  repeated  in  an 
Oxford  charter  of  two  generations  later !  See,  also, 
page  435. 

The  mint  was  continued  until  the  accession  of  Edward  I. 

COINS. 

•fclEGLNOD  ON  OXNE  ^.HNEIEVS  EE      251 

British  Museum.  An  Ailnoth,  as  a  former 
citizen  of  Oxford,  is  mentioned  in  the 
Oseney  charter  of  1129. 

^EAPYLF  :  ON  :  OXENN  *r\ENEIEVS  :         255 

J.  Murdoch.  PI.  VII,  No.  9.  From  the 
Montagu  Sale,  1896,  £3.  As  to  this 
moneyer,  see  before. 

....  VLF  :  ON  :  0  .  .  N  255 

Brice  Sale,  1881, £2  2s.  Od. ;  Sale,  June,  1885. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       359 

*RA.WLF  OX  OXEN  *hEN  .  .  EVS          255 

British  Museum. 


4.RAWLF    .  .    OXEN 
Watford  find. 


*hEN..EVS 


255 


VVLF  ON  0  ... 

H.  P.  Smith  Sale,  1886. 


255 


*SA€BIM  :  ON  :  OXENN 


•frhENRIEVS 


255 


Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  L.  A.  Lawrence, 
22£  grs.  Domesday  mentions  three  tenants 
in  capite  at  Oxford  named  Segrim,  and  a 
Segrim,  citizen  of  Oxford,  is  mentioned  in 
the  foundation  charter  of  Oseney,  1129, 
whose  property  was,  or  had  been,  "juxta 
murum." 


.  .  .  M  :  ON  :  OXNE 


E      255 


Engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.,  25,  but  cor- 
rected. 


*SWETMAN  :  ON  :  NA 
See  page  318. 


255 


•frSWETMAN  ON    ...  R  *  •  .  NRIEVS          255 

See  page  318. 

Hoare  Sale,  1861  ;  Sainthill,  1870,  and  Sale,   May, 

1870.  255 


300  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


'  PETEEBOROUGH  (NORTHAMPTONSHIRE). 

BURGH,  BURH,  BURUH,  BURCH  ;  Early  Saxon,  MEDESHAMSTEDE  ; 
Domesday,  BURG  ;  Pipe  Roll,  BURGUM. 

"  In  the  time  of  King  Edgar,  Bishop  Athelwold 
restored  the  Abbey  of  Medeshamstede,  in  the  town  now 
called  Burg,  which  Bishop  Sexwulf  founded  in  the  reign 
of  Wulf  here,  King  of  the  Mercians,"  says  Orderic  ;  but 
according  to  the  Peterborough  version  of  the  Saxon 
Chronicle,  it  was  founded  by  King  Peada  and  Oswy  the 
brother  of  King  Oswald.  Notwithstanding  its  destruc- 
tion at  the  hands  of  the  Danes  in  the  ninth  century  it 
subsequently,  to  quote  the  last-mentioned  authority, 
"  waxed  so  greatly  in  land  and  in  gold  and  in  silver  that 
it  was  called  the  Golden  Burg." 

1070.  "  The  Monastery  was  pillaged  and  burnt  in  Here- 
ward's  rising,  when  so  much  gold  and  silver,  and  so 
much  treasure  in  money,  apparel,  and  books  were 
taken,  that  no  man  can  compute  the  amount."  (Sax. 
Chron.) 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — The  extensive  possessions  of 
the  Abbot  of  Peterborough,  which  include  "the 
town  which  is  called  Burg,"  are  set  out  in  detail, 
but  throw  no  light  upon  his  rights  of  coinage. 

1102.  "In  Pentecost  week  there  came  robbers  from 
Auvergne,  France,  and  Flanders,  and  they  broke  into 
the  Monastery,  and  carried  off  much  treasure  of  gold 
and  silver,  crosses,  chalices,  and  candlesticks."  (Sax. 
Chron.) 

Michaelmas.     Abbot    Godric   is    deposed    by    the 
London  Synod.    (Florence.) 

110H-4  ?  Matthias  elected  Abbot,  but  he  only  held  the 
Abbey  one  year. 

1107.  Arnulf,  Prior  of  Canterbury,  elected  Abbot.  (Sax. 
Chron.) 

1114.     Raised  to  the  see  of  Rochester. 
John  of  Sees  succeeds. 


A.    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      3G1 

1116.  August  3.  "  The  whole  of  the  Monastery,  with 
all  the  houses,  excepting  the  chapterhouse  and  the 
dormitory,  was  burnt,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
town  also."  (Sax.  Chron.) 

1118.     Foundation  of  the  present  cathedral. 

1125.     October  13.  ,  Death  of  Abbot  John.    (Sax.  Chron.) 

1127.  Henry  of  Poitou,  cousin  to  the  King,  appointed 
Abbot.  An  unpopular  appointment.  (Sax.  Chron.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Richard  Basset,  the  sheriff, 
returns  the  account  of  the  "  pisteslai  "  of  the  Abbey 
at  25  marks  of  silver.  Hugh  de  Waterville  accounts 
for  £8  6s.  8d.,  and  Ralph  de  Lamara  for  three  ounces 
of  gold  for  succession  to  the  personal  effects  of  the 
late  abbot.  Anchitel,  priest  of  Peterborough,  ac- 
counts for  10  marks  of  silver  for  his  award,  which  he 
was  not  able  to  contest ;  he  pays  40  shillings,  and 
owes  7  marks  of  silver. 

1132.  Abbot  Henry,  after  being  expelled  by  the  monks, 
is  finally  deposed,  and  Martin,  Prior  of  St.  Neots, 
appointed  in  his  stead.  (Sax.  Chron.) 

In  the  year  963  King  Edgar  commenced  the  restoration 
of  the  desolated  Saxon  monastery,  and  in  972  he  granted  a 
charter  to  it  which  not  only  confirmed  all  its  ancient 
privileges,  but  included  certain  additional  benefits. 
Amongst  the  latter  was  "  one  moneyer  in  Stamford " 
(Sax.  Chron.  ;  Monasticon).  Hitherto  it  has  been  assumed 
by  all  historians  that  because  that  part  of  Stamford  which 
lies  to  the  south  of  the  river  Welland,  known  as  St. 
Martin's,  or  Stamford  Baron,  belonged  to  the  monastery 
in  Saxon  times,  "  the  moneyer  in  Stamford  "  and  the  mint 
were  within  it.  But  upon  comparing  the  charters  of 
Wulfhere,  Edgar  and  Thurkil  Hoche,  it  seems  doubtful 
whether  Stamford  Baron  was  then  included  within  the 
possessions  of  the  monastery,  for  whilst  the  church  lay  in 
ruins  and  its  rights  dormant,  Edward  the  Elder  had  built 
a  royal  burg  (Stamford  Baron]  "  upon  the  south  side  of 
the  river/'  and  one  would  therefore  have  expected  it  to 
have  been  specially  referred  to  in  Edgar's  charter  if  it 


362  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

were  intended  to  pass,  whereas,  on  the  contrary,  he  cer- 
tainly implies  that  Stamford  and  its  market  then  remained 
the  King's. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  grant  of  "  one  moneyer  in  Stam- 
ford "  was,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  page  373,  exactly 
on  a  par  with  the  subsequent  grant  to  Reading  Abbey 
of  "  one  moneyer  in  London,"  or  as  already  noticed,  page 
327,  with  the  right,  recorded  in  Domesday,  of  the  Bishop 
of  East  Anglia — then  located  at  Thetford — to  "  one 
moneyer  in  Norwich."  Therefore  as  the  Abbot  of  Read- 
ing never  had  any  territorial  rights  in  London,  so,  con- 
versely, the  territorial  right,  if  any,  of  the  Abbot  of 
Peterborough  in  Stamford  had  nothing  to  do  with  his 
grant  of  the  moneyer.  In  all  these  cases,  the  King  having 
several  royal  moneyers  in  the  principal  city  or  town, 
allocated  one  of  them  to  the  see  or  monastery  as  an 
endowment,  and  to  have  granted  the  privilege  of  a 
moneyer  to  either  Peterborough  or  Reading  at  the  monas- 
tery itself  would  have  been  an  empty  benefit,  for  the 
abbeys  were  then  only  in  course  of  erection  and  had 
neither  an  exchange  nor  even  a  resident  population.  The 
case,  too,  of  the  Bishop  of  East  Anglia,  no  doubt  dates 
from  the  time  when  the  see  was  located  at  Elmham,  and 
a  moneyer  there  would  have  little  profited  him. 

Edgar's  charter  was  duly  confirmed  by  his  successors 
Edward  the  Martyr  and  Ethelred  II  (Monasticon)  ;  but  on 
his  accession,  Canute  had  granted  East  Anglia  to  Thurkil 
the  Earl  (Sax.  Chon.).  Hence  it  was  Thurkil's  duty  to 
confirm  the  rights  of  the  monastery,  and  so  amongst  the 
records  of  the  Abbey  we  find — 

*'  Turkilus  Hoche  [?  the  Hold]  dedit  Sancto  Petro  Coling- 
ham  et  monetarium  in  Stanford  et  terrain  ibidem 
existe  parte  aqure."  (Monasticon.) 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  1.      3b'3 

This  is,  no  doubt,  extracted  from  his  confirmation 
charter  so  far  as  the  moneyer  is  concerned,  but  the  grants 
of  Colingham  (North  Collingham  in  Nottinghamshire)  and 
Stamford  Baron  seem  to  be  additional  endowments,  and 
only  now  to  come  into  the  abbey's  possession.  In  1021 
Thurkil  was  outlawed,  so  Canute  himself  confirmed  the 
Abbot's  privileges,  and  we  have  also  the  record  of  a  similar 
charter  of  Edward  the  Confessor.  (Monasticon.) 

Thurkil's  grant  of  Stamford  Baron  to  the  Abbot,  so  far 
from  inferring  that  the  mint  was  on  that  side  the  Welland, 
as  Ruding  and  others  have  assumed,  proves  exactly  the 
reverse,  for  we"  know  that  there  were  then  about  a  dozen 
money ers  at  Stamford,  and  if  he  granted  the  southern 
burg  it  would,  had  the  mint  been  within  it,  have  included 
not  "  one  moneyer  at  Stamford  "  only,  but  the  mint  and 
all  the  twelve.  The  moneyers,  as  at  London,  were  no 
doubt  located  at  the  principal  gates,  and  these  would  be 
upon  the  earthworks  of  the  -old  town  on  the  north  side 
of  the  river. 

As  explained  on  page  30,  it  follows  that  all  the  money 
struck  by  the  Abbot's  moneyer  must  bear  the  name  of 
Stamford  as  its  mint,  and  the  contemporary  identification 
of  his  money  would  of  course  be  apparent  from  the 
moneyer's  name  upon  it.  But  it  might  happen  that  a 
King's  moneyer  who  had  been  coining  in  a  certain  type 
was,  owing  to  the  death  of  his  ecclesiastical  colleague, 
transferred  to  the  Abbot,  and  continued  to  issue  the  same 
type  for  him,  or,  again,  upon  the  appointment  of  a  new 
Abbot  the  moneyer  of  his  predecessor  might  similarly  con- 
tinue the  current  type.  In  either  of  these  cases,  it  will  be 
patent  to  all,  that  unless  the  Abbot  was  prepared  to  accept 
the  responsibility  for  money  issued  before  it  was  under  his 
own  control,  some  mark  upon  the  new  money  was  necessary 


364  XVMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

for  identification,  and  the  same  necessity  would  arise  when 
a  moneyer  succeeded  another  of  the  same  name.  This  was 
readily  effected  by  the  addition  of  a  small  ornament  or 
device  to  the  existing  die. 

Such  is  a  very  simple  explanation  of  an  old  but  unsolved 
problem,  and  if  it  is  similarly  extended  to  the  changes  in  the 
tenure  of,  or  upon  the  succession  of  the  Earls  and  Barons 
to,  the  grantees'  mints  as  now  proffered  in  the  case  of  the 
accession  of  the  spiritual  lords,  all  those  small  ornaments 
and  devices  which  are  so  frequently  found  upon  our  early- 
coins  need  no  longer  be  treated  as  mere  eccentricities  or 
incomprehensible  mint  marks,  for  they  were  as  necessary 
as  they  were  ingenious.  The  spiritual  lords  usually  chose 
some  ecclesiastical  symbol  such  as  a  small  cross  or  annulet 
— their  ring  of  investiture. 

"  Lay  down  thy  cross  and  staff, 
Thy  myter  and  thy  ring  I  to  thee  gaff." 

If  the  reader  will  refer  to  the  Num.  Chron.  N.  S.  xx., 
PI.  XI.,  Nos.  2,  3,  5,  and  7 ;  Ruding,  21,  7,  and  Hilde- 
brand  and  Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  under  "  Stamford,"  he  will  find 
numerous  examples  of  the  cross  and  annulet  upon  the  coins 
of  the  Stamford  mint ;  which  coins  no  doubt  represent 
some  of  the  money  of  the  Abbots  of  Peterborough.  The 
annulet,  or  ring  of  St.  Peter,  was  the  symbol  of  investiture, 
and  as  such  was  especially  applicable  in  the  cases  of  St. 
Peter's  at  York  and  St.  Peter's  at  Burgh. 

Such  was  the  position  at  the  date  of  the  Conquest. 
But  now  we  approach  a  somewhat  difficult  problem.  Since 
the  days  of  Canute  the  royal  mint  of  Stamford  had  been 
gradually  declining,  and  although  there  would  appear  to 
have  been  six  moneyers  in  office  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Confessor's  reign,  there  were  only  two  or  three  at  its 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      365 

close.  This  decrease  is  the  more  marked  when  we  enter 
upon  the  Norman  series  of  the  coinage,  for,  after  correcting 
some  confusion  which  has  arisen  owing  to  the  similarity 
of  the  contracted  forms  of  the  names  Steyning  and  Stafford 
to  Stamford,  and  after  allowing,  under  one  or  two  types 
only,  for  the  succession  of  a  new  moneyer  or  moneyers 
during  the  period  of  issue,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
in  any  of  the  reigns  of  William  I,  William  II,  or  Henry  I 
there  was  more  than  a  single  moneyer  in  office  at  Stam- 
ford. The  question,  of  course,  follows  :  Did  that  moneyer 
represent  the  King  or  the  Abbot  of  Peterborough  ?  The 
reply  must  be— the  Abbot.  In  the  first  place  the  coinage  is 
of  too  intermittent  a  character  to  represent  that  of  a  royal 
mint.  In  the  second,  the  Abbot  certainly  retained  his 
right  to  a  moneyer  at  Stamford,  for  King  Stephen  granted 
the  usual  confirmation  charter  in  which  it  was  specially 
mentioned,  and  which  again  was  confirmed  by  a  Bull  of 
Pope  Eugenius  III  in  1146  (Monasticon),  and  Mr.  W.  C. 
Wells  has  two  Stamford  coins  of  that  reign  from  the  same 
dies,  the  first  of  which  has  a  plain  sceptre,  but  upon  the 
second  a  bar  has  been  subsequently  cut  across  the  staff  of 
the  sceptre  in  the  die  to  convert  it  into  a  cross,  as  above 
explained.  And  in  the  third,  the  mint  is  not  mentioned 
in  Domesday,  and  therefore  as  no  return  from  it  is 
recorded  for  the  King  it  must,  if  a  royal  mint,  have  been 
included  in  the  firma  of  the  town,  but  although  the  town 
paid  customs  to  the  King,  its  gabulum  and  thelonium 
belonged  to  the  Abbot  of  Peterborough.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  single  moneyer  was  the  Abbot's,  the  return  of 
the  mint  did  not  concern  the  Crown,  and  so  was,  properly, 
omitted  from  the  Survey. 

Why  this  change  was  made  must  remain  a  matter  of 
surmise.    It  may  be  that  the  same  advance  in  trade,  popu- 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  3  B 


366  XTMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

lation  and  prosperity  which  induced  Remigius  to  transfer 
the  See  of  Dorchester  to  Lincoln  caused  the  King  to 
transfer  the  Stamford  royal  moneyers  to  that  city — and 
the  coins  of  Lincoln  of  William  I  and  the  enormous  firtna 
of  its  mint  as  recorded  in  Domesday  somewhat  support  the 
suggestion.  Or  it  may  be  that  as  the  Monastery  of 
Peterborough  was  pillaged  and  burnt,  and  lost  so  much 
treasure  "  that  no  man  can  compute  the  amount  "  in  the 
troubles  arising  out  of  William's  invasion,  the  King,  to 
recompense  the  Church,  handed  over  to  the  Abbot  the 
whole  mint  of  Stamford  and  all  its  profits  by  withdrawing 
the  royal  moneyers.  This,  perhaps,  is  the  more  probable 
explanation  in  view  of  the  subsequent  parallel  instance  of 
Bath,  see  page  110. 

On  the  accession  of  Henry  I  Godric  was  Abbot  of  Peter- 
borough, and  type  251  (1100-1102)  is  in  evidence  from 
the  Stamford  moneyer.  At  Michaelmas,  1102,  commenced 
the  great  war  of  investitures  between  .Archbishop  Anselin 
and  King  Henry.  The  Archbishop  claimed  that  the  King 
had  no  power  to  appoint  to  a  benefice  without  the  sanction 
of  the  Church.  He,  therefore,  called  a  synod  at  London 
in  September,  1102,  and  revoked  the  appointment  of  no 
fewer  than  nine  Abbots,  of  whom  Godric  was  one.  To  this 
Henry  not  only  refused  to  submit,  but  is  recorded  to  have 
shown  marks  of  special  favour  to  the  deposed  Abbots,  and 
he  ultimately  banished  Anselm.  The  position,  therefore, 
at  Peterborough  was  that  Godric  remained  the  temporal 
Abbot,  but  Matthias  was  elected  spiritual  Abbot  against 
the  will  of  the  King,  hence  it  follows  to  reason  that  as 
Stamford  was  a  royal  burg  its  moneyer  remained  Godric's, 
and  so  types  254  (1102-1104)  and  253  (1104-1106)  appear 
from  the  mint.  Meanwhile  Matthias,  who  only  held  the 
Abbacy,  under  the  spiritual  appointment,  for  exactly 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      367 

twelve  months,  died  on  October  19th  in  either  1103  or 
1104  ;  for  although  the  Saxon  Chronicle  gives  it  as  1103, 
it  would  make  the  date  of  his  election,  i.e.  when  "  he  was 
received  in  procession  as  Abbot,"  immediately  follow  the 
synod,  which  was  unusual,  whereas  other  authorities  state 
that  in  1107  Henry  had  held  the  abbey  in  his  own  hands 
— i.e.  through  Godric — for  three,  not  four  years. 

In  1107  Henry  had  to  submit  to  the  Church,  Anselm 
was  recalled,  and  in  August,  "  amongst  others  who  then 
received  abbacies,  Arnulf,  Prior  of  Canterbury,  obtained 
that  of  Peterborough."  (Sax.  Chron.)  This  appoint- 
ment— of  one  of  Anselm's  Priors  of  Canterbury — may 
be  assumed  to  have  been  made  grudgingly  and  of  neces- 
sity, and  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  King  would,  if 
he  could  avoid  it,  confirm  the  Abbot's  temporal  privilege 
of  a  moneyer  at  Stamford.  This  is  borne  out  by  the 
fact  that  we  have  no  coins  bearing  the  name  of  Stamford 
upon  any  of  the  types  during  Abbot  Arnulf's  tenure  of 
office,  namely,  from  August,  1107,  to  September  13th, 
1114.  (Sax.  Chron.) 

"Soon  afterwards,"  says  the  same  authority,  "  at  the 
request  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  [Ralph],  the 
King  gave  the  Abbacy  to  a  monk  of  Sees,  named  John. 
And  soon  after  this  the  King  and  the  Archbishop  sent 
him  to  Rome  for  the  Archbishop's  Pall.  This  was  done 
on  the  llth  before  the  Kalends  of  October."  Thus, 
immediately  upon  his  appointment,  John  of  Sees  sets  out 
on  a  journey  to  Rome,  from  which  he  did  not  return 
until  June  27th,  1115.  (Sax.  Chron.  ;  Florence.)  Then, 
no  doubt,  he  received  his  confirmation  charter  from  King 
Henry  and  type  264  (1116-1119)  is  issued  from  the 
Stamford  mint.  Abbot  John  died  in  1125,  and,  mean- 
while, we  know  nothing  of  his  history  nor  have  we,  so  far 


368  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

as  is  yet  ascert aired,  any  coins  representing  the  last  five 
years  of  his  life. 

In  1127  the  King  granted  the  abbey  to  Henry  of 
Poitou  —  sometimes  styled  of  Anjou  —  "  forasmuch  as 
he  was  his  kinsman,"  and  "  thus  vexatiously  was  the 
Abbacy  of  Peterborough  given  away  at  London  between 
Christmas  and  Candlemas,  and  so  Henry  went  with  the 
King  to  Winchester  and  thence  he  came  to  Peterborough 
and  there  lived  even  as  a  drone  in  a  hive."  (Sax.  Chron.) 
He  at  once  revived  the  coinage  at  Stamford  and  issued 
types  265(1126-1128)  and  262(1128-1131).  On  June 
23rd,  1131,  he  was  expelled  by  the  monks,  who  "  for  five- 
and-twenty  years  had  never  known  a  good  day."  (Sax. 
Chron.)  A  few  lines  later  the  same  authority  refers  to 
them  as  "  the  wretched  monks  of  Peterborough,  standing 
in  need  of  the  help  of  all  Christian  people,"  and  the 
observant  reader  will  notice  that  this  period  of  twenty- 
five  years,  namely,  from  the  year  1106,  represents  the 
only  time  in  the  history  of  the  abbey  when  its  mint  at 
Stamford  lay  almost  dormant. 

But  in  1132  "  the  King  granted  the  abbacy  to  a  Prior 
of  St.  Neots  named  Martin,  and  he  came  to  the  monas- 
tery, right  worshipfully  attended,  on  St.  Peter's  day." 
(Sax.  Chron.)  He  issued  type  255  (1131-1135)  and 
from  this  time  forward  the  Abbots  of  Peterborough 
regularly  continued  their  mint  at  Stamford  until  its 
close  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II. 

Concerning  the  moneyers.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  Saxon  Kings  assigned  one  of  their  own 
moneyers  at  Stamford  to  the  Abbots,  and  therefore  his 
position  would  be  that  of  a  royal  moneyer  who  had  to 
account  to  the  Abbot — exactly  as  we  shall  see  under 
Reading,  Henry  I  assigned  one  of  his  royal  moneyers  of 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      369 

London  to  that  abbey.  Hence  the  position  of  the  Stam- 
ford money er  remained  similar  to  that  of  a  royal  money er 
as  described  under  Lincoln,  London,  and  elsewhere. 
There  was  no  objection  to  his  being  a  priest  or  monk, 
for,  as  we  have  seen  in  Ethelred  II's  Institutes  of  Lon- 
don, he  would  have  subordinates  under  him,  and  we  know 
that  several  London  moneyers  were  admitted  into  the 
Church.  In  Domesday  we  read  that  Lewine  had  lately 
held  a  house  in  Stamford  "  to  all  custom  except  geld," 
and  on  the  coins  of  the  Confessor  and  of  William  I,  but 
previously  to  1086  only,  is  the  name  of  LEFPINE  or 
LEOFPINE. 

Until  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence,  in  Num.  Chron.,  iii.,  17,  302, 
demonstrated  that  a  series  of  Saxon  and  Norman  coins 
reading  BEBDESTA,  BIIEDI,  BAED,  &c.,  as  their  place  of 
mintage  were  coins  of  the  Barnstaple  mint,  it  was 
erroneously  thought  that  the  coins  of  the  Conqueror 
reading  BIIBDI  =  BABDI  represented  Peterborough.  See 
page  103. 

COINS. 

ISSUED    FROM    THE    STAMFORD    MINT   UNDER    THE  CHARTERED 
PRIVILEGES  OF  THE  ABBOTS  OF  PETERBOROUGH. 

.frABEIL  ON  STEN  *HIENEI  E  254 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University; 
PI.  II,  No.  8.  The  moneyer  coined  here 
in  the  previous  reign  as  ON  STNF. 

*ABLIL  ON  STNFE  ^HENEI  BEX        253 

British  Museum.     Fig.  C,  page  49. 


370  "NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE 

•frSODRIE    ON  STEN  *H3NEI  EEX         253 

J.   Verity.      From   the   Marsham,   1888,  and 
Montagu,  1896,  Sales. 

•fcGODRIE  :  ON  :  STAN  .frhENRIEVS          264 

J.    Murdoch.       From    the    Carbery     Evans 
collection. 


.frHEIRMAN  ON  STN  .J.HNRI  REX  I       251 

British  Museum.  The  moneyer  coined  here  in 
the  previous  reign. 

*HIR[M]OR  ON  .  TA>E  *  HENRI  RE  253 

Spink  and  Son. 

•Hi[IRMOR]  ON  STANEFOR     ^rxENRIEVS  R        265 

Bodleian    Library.     The    moneyer   was    pro- 
bably son  of  the  above. 

....  MOR  :  ON  :  STANFOR        HhfiENRIEVS  R  :     262 
Watford  find.     16£  grs. 

*LEYSI  :  ON  :  STAN  ^hENRIEVS  :        255 

Lincoln  and  Son.  This  moneyer  continued  to 
coin  here  in  the  following  reign. 

•frLEV..     ..    S..NE  *h..RIE.S         255 

Watford  find. 

4-MORVS  :  0[N]  STANE  :          .frhENRIE  .  S  R  :     264 

British  Museum.  Engraved  Withy  and  By  all, 
ii.,  14;  Snelling,  i.,  19;  Hawkins,  264  and 
Num.  Chron.,  x.,  21.  The  moneyer's  name 
is  suiely  not  what  Morns  means,  but 
probably  a  contraction  of  Morinns. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       371 

ON  STAN  262 

Late    A.    E.    Packe.      The    moneyer  would 
probably  be  hIRMOR. 

For  the  coin  of  type  265,  attributed  by  Mr.  Sharp  and 
in  the  Whitbourn  and  Montagu  catalogues  to  this  mint, 
see  under  Thetford,  page  427. 


READING  (BEBKSHIRE). 

REDDINGES,  RADINGES,  RADINGIA,  RADYNG,  READINGAS  ;  Domes- 
day, REDINGES  ;  Pipe  Roll,  RADING. 

Reading,  like  Oxford,  does  not  appear  upon  the  pages 
of  history  until  long  after  it  had  become  a  town  of  im- 
portance, for  when,  under  the  year  871,  it  is  first  men- 
tioned in  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  its  possession  was  the  cause 
of  one  of  the  most  sanguinary  of  the  many  contests  between 
King  Ethelred  and  the  Danes.  It  was  burnt  by  the  latter 
in  1006  (Florence)  and  its  recovery  seems  to  have  been 
but  slow,  for  at  the  date  of  Domesday  it  was  a  compara- 
tively small  town,  and  it  was  not  until  the  foundation  of 
the  great  abbey  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  twelfth  century 
that  it  again  flourished  in  wealth  and  importance. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — The  King  holds  Reading  in  lord- 
ship. King  Edward  held  it.  It  pays  tax  for  43  bides. 
In  the  time  of  King  Edward  it  was  worth  £40,  now  it 
is  worth  £48.  The  King  has  in  the  burg  28  houses, 
returning  £4  3s.  Od.  for  all  customs  ;  nevertheless,  he 
[the  sheriff]  who  has  it  pays  one  hundred  shillings. 
The  corn  mills  and  fishery  rights  are  mentioned,  and 
also  the  hospitium. 

1111.  King  Henry,  here,  granted  his  charter  to  Colne 
Abbey.  (Monasticou.) 


372  NFMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

1121.  "At  Reading  some  monks  began  to  establish  a 
monastic  order  under  the  holy  regulations  of  St. 
Benedict,"  but  elsewhere  Westminster  states  that  the 
King  "  built  the  abbey  from  its  foundations,  and 
during  his  lifetime  had  laid  the  first  stone  in  the 
presence  of  Stephen,  afterwards  King,  and  of  many  of 
his  barons." 

1123.  April  15.  Hugh,  Prior  of  St.  Pancras  (at  Lewes), 
appointed  Abbot  (Westminster). 

1126.  On  the  death  of  Henry  V,  Matilda,  the  Empress, 
brought  with  her  to  England  the  sanctified  hand  of  St. 
James.  This  the  King  placed  in  the  Abbey  of  Reading, 
which  he  enriched  with  many  valuables.  (Hovedeu.) 
The  relic  was  still  here  at  the  Dissolution.  See  the 
Reading  terrier. 

1130.  Abbot  Hugh  having  been  elected  Archbishop  of 
Rouen,  Ansger,  Prior  of  St.  Pancras,  was  appointed  to 
Reading.  (Florence.) 

1135-6.  Christmas.  Here  Henry's  remains  were  interred 
with  great  ceremony. 

In  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II  a  royal  mint  was  estab- 
lished in  the  burg  of  Reading,  but  shortly  afterwards, 
owing  no  doubt  to  the  devastation  of  1006,  it  was  dis- 
continued. After  the  gradual  recovery  of  the  town  the 
mint  was  revived  in  the  days  of  the  Confessor,  but  was 
finally  abolished  at  the  Conquest.  It  is  therefore  with 
the  later  ecclesiastical  coinage  that  we  are  now  con- 
cerned. 

Although  the  abbey  was  commenced  in  1121  and  its 
first  Abbot  appointed  in  1123,  it  was  not  until  1125  that 
the  King  granted  the  foundation  charter.  This  charter 
is  dated,  and  apart  from  the  fact  that  Henry  spent  the 
whole  year  in  Normandy,  it  bears  internal  evidence  of 
having  been  granted  in  that  country.  It  is  witnessed  by 
seven  Norman  ecclesiastics,  and  Florence  of  Worcester 
tell  us  tbat — 

"  After  Easter  the  bishops  elect  Simon  [of  Worcester]  and 
Sigfred  [of  Chichester]  with  the  Archbishops  William  and 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       373 

Thurstan  and  a  Cardinal  of  Rome  named  John  [of  Crema]  came 
[from  Normandy]  to  England  and  Sigefred  was  consecrated  . 
on  the  12th  of  April." 

Hence,  as  every  one  of  these  names  appears  as  that  of  a 
witness  to  the  charter,  it  is  quite  clear  that  its  date  is 
earlier  than  April  12th.  We  may,  therefore,  almost  assume 
the  true  date  to  be  on  the  occasion  of  the  Easter  Court, 
probably  at  Rouen,  on  March  29th,  1125. 

After  reciting  that  he  "  had  built  the  new  monastery  at 
Reading,"  Henry  grants  to  its  Abbot  amongst  many  other 
privileges  a  mint  and  one  moneyer  at  Reading,  viz. — 

"  Cum  moneta  et  uno  monetario  apud  Radingiam."  (Monas- 
ticon.) 

But  the  grant  of  a  mint  and  moneyer  to  an  abbey  still 
in  the  early  stages  of  its  erection  was  but  an  empty 
favour,  and  so  we  find  that  the  precedent  of  Peterborough 
was  followed  and  the  King  by  writ  authorized  Roger, 
Bishop  of  Salisbury,  as  "  Chief  Justiciary  of  all  England," 
in  his  own  absence  to  allocate  one  of  the  royal  money ers 
of  London,  who  should  coin  and  hold  an  exchange  there, 
for  and  on  behalf  of  the  Abbot.  This,  Bishop  Roger  did, 
and  a  transcript  of  his  charter  is  extant ;  but,  curiously 
enough,  Ruding  has  credited  it  to  a  Bishop  of  Salisbury 
of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  It  is  of  sufficient  numismatic 
interest  to  deserve  a  verbatim  report. 

"  Carta  R.  Episcopi  Far.  de  uno  Monetario  in  London. 

'!  R.  Sar.  Episcopus  et  regni  Angliae  procurator  sub  domino 
nostro  rege  Henrico  A.  Vicecomiti  et  omnibus  ministris  regis 
tarn  praesentibus  quam  futuris  de  London  et  de  tota  Anglia 
salutem.  Sciatis  quod  ex  praecepto  domini  nostri  regis  Henriri 
donavimus  Hugoui  abbati  et  monachis  Rading.  unum  Mone 
tarium  in  London,  ubi  et  monetam  faciat  et  cambium  teneat 
et  omnia  eicut  cseteri  monetarii  regis,  Edgarum  scilicet,  qui 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SKR1ES.  3  C 


374  M  MISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

concedente  rege  ita  liber  et  quietus  et  absolutus  cum  domo  et 
familia  sua  ab  omni  placito  et  omnibus  causiset  consuetudinibus 
manebit  in  manu  abbatis  et  monachorum  Rading.  ac  si  maneret 
Radingis.  Quicunque  etiam  post  Edgarum,  vel  loco  ejus,  in 
moneta  positus  apud  London  per  manum  abbatis  et  mona- 
cborum  Kadiug.  fuerit,  eodem  modo  liber,  et  quietus,  et  absolutus 
cum  domo  et  familia  sua  apud  Lond.  manebit  in  manu  abbatis 
et  monachorum  Bading  ac  si  maneret  Rading. 

"  Ipse  vero  Edgarus  et  quicunque  post  eum  monetarius 
fuerit,  solvet  pro  inoueta  abbati  et  monacbis  Rading.  omnes  illas 
causas  et  consuetudines  quas  caeteri  monetarii  Lond.  solvunt 
domino  regi,  et  cambiet  in  terra  abbatis  Rading.  sicut  ei  abbas 
concesserit,  tarn  Edgarus  quam  ille  qui  post  eum  vel  pro  eo 
abbas  seu  monachi  Rading.  fecerint  monetarium,  quod  eis  con- 
cessum  est  facere  in  perpetuum."  (Monasticon.) 


The  essential  conditions  to  enable  us  to  accurately 
determine  the  date  of  this  charter  are  not  wanting.  It 
refers  to  Hugh  the  Abbot,  and  therefore  must  be  between 
April  15th,  1123,  and  May  8th,  1130,  when  Ansger  was 
appointed  in  his  stead  ;  but  as  it  is  necessarily  subsequent 
to  the  foundation  charter  it  cannot  be  earlier  than  1125. 
The  fact  that  it  is  granted  by  Roger,  Bishop  of 
Salisbury,  instead  of  by  the  King  himself,  shows  that 
Henry  was  then  in  Normandy,  for  he  had  "committed 
all  England  [during  his  absence]  to  the  care  and  admin- 
istration of  Roger,  Bishop  of  Salisbury  "  (Sax.  Chron.), 
which  again  narrows  the  date.  Finally  it  is  addressed 
to  "  A,"  as  Sheriff  of  London,  and  in  this  we  recognise 
the  Alberic  de  Vere,  Sheriff  of  London,  to  whom  William 
Fitz  Otho's  charter  of  1128-1129  was  addressed  (see  page 
97).  Another  charter  of  the  same  period  is  addressed  to 
Alberic  as  Sheriff  of  London,  and  is  granted  by  the  King 
at  Barnham,  near  Arundel,  Sussex,  whilst,  no  doubt,  on 
his  journey  either  to  or  from  Normandy.  Hence  we  may, 
with  some  degree  of  certainty,  assign  the  Reading  charter 
of  Roger  of  Salisbury  to  the  date  of  the  King's  absence 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      375 

from  England,  between  August,  1127,  and  July,  1128, 
when  the  Bishop  was  acting  as  Regent  of  the  kingdom. 
Incidentally  it  should  be  noticed  how  clearly  this  charter 
proves  the  correctness  of  Mr.  Round's  theory  of  the  later 
date  of  the  London  charter,  for  it  could  not  have  operated 
if  the  London  moneyers  then  had  under  that  charter  the 
right  to  refuse  to  plead  without  the  city  walls. 

Having  ascertained  that  the  Abbot  of  Reading  had  thus 
received  the  privilege  of  coinage  at  London,  in  or  about 
1128,  one  would  expect  to  find  it  exercised  in  the  type 
immediately  following — viz.  262,  for  the  years  1129  to 
1131,  but  as  yet  EDGAE'S  name  has  not  been  found  upon 
it.  The  explanation  lies  in  the  actual  date  of  Abbot 
Hugh's  election  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Rouen,  for 
although  Robert  de  Monte  gives  the  date  of  his  consecra- 
tion as  September  14th,  1130,  he  was  actually  elected  in 
1129  or  possibly  late  in  1128.  This  is  clear  from  the  fact 
that  his  election  was  confirmed  by  Pope  Honorius,  who 
himself  died  February  14th,  1130.  Therefore,  as  the 
archbishopric  was  vacated  by  the  death  of  Geoffrey  in 
November,  1128,  which  was  immediately  after  the  grant 
of  the  moneyer  to  Abbot  Hugh,  we  may  assume  that  the 
negotiations,  pending,  for  the  latter's  preferment  to  Rouen, 
naturally  rendered  it  not  worth  his  while  or  expense,  for 
these  privileges  were  costly  luxuries,  to  establish  a 
Reading  coinage  at  London. 

But  upon  the  installation  of  Abbot  Ansger  the  moneyer 
EADSAR  is  established,  and  we  find  his  name  in  plentiful 
evidence  on  the  coins  struck  at  London  in  type  255 
(1131-1135).  From  the  fact  that  there  are  no  annulets  or 
other  ornaments  upon  Eadgar's  coins  we  may  assume  that 
he  had  never  coined,  in  that  type  at  least,  for  the  King, 
and  therefore  that  all  his  coins  were  struck  under  the 


376 


NUMISMATIC   CH  KOX ICLE. 


authority  of  the  Abbot.  As  his  name  does  not  appear  in 
Stephen's  reign,  it  is  probable  that  he  died  or  retired  from 
office  at  some  date  between  1131  and  1135.  The  Abbot 
would  then,  under  the  powers  of  his  charter,  appoint  "per 
manum  Abbatis  et  monachorum,"  another  of  the  London 
moneyers  to  represent  him  at  that  mint.  Following  the 
rule  as  explained  under  Peterborough,  page  263,  if  he 
appointed  a  moneyer  who  had  already  been  coining  at 
London  in  type  255,  it  would  be  necessary  for  some 
ornament  or  mark — probably  an  annulet,  the  symbol  of 
the  Abbot's  investiture — to  be  cut  upon  the  dies,  so  that 
the  new  coins,  which  would  still  bear  the  name  of  London, 
could  be  distinguished  from  the  old,  and  the  responsibility 
for  both  thus  identified.  This  we  find  exactly  the  case 
upon  the  coins  of  one  moneyer,  and  of  one  moneyer  only, 
namely  BALDEP1N,  who  at  first  uses  plain  dies  in  type 
255,  but  later — and  judging  from  their  percentage,  towards 
the  close  of  the  type — a  small  annulet  is  cut  upon  them,  and 
so  the  subsequent  coins  were  thus  distinguished  as  the 
Reading  money.  Perhaps,  in  this  originated  the  Abbot  of 
Reading's  power  to  order  certain  ornaments  or  impressions 
upon  his  coins,  which  is  referred  to  in  the  writ  of  1338 
quoted  on  page  28.  When  the  customs  of  heraldry 
became  more  general  in  this  country,  it  was  only  natural 
that  the  annulet  of  the  Abbot  in  the  reigns  of  Henry  I 
and  Stephen  should  give  place  to  the  escallop  shell,  the 
arms  of  the  abbey,  in  the  reigns  of  the  Edwards. 

Later,  when  the  population  and  wealth  around  the 
abbey  rendered  it  a  question  of  no  importance  whether 
the  mint  and  exchange  were  at  London  or  Reading, 
the  moneyer  was  removed  to  the  abbey  itself.  But  the 
monetary  powers  of  the  Abbot  were  finally  withdrawn  in 
the  reign  of  Edward  III. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       377 

COINS. 

ISSUED  FEOM  THE  LONDON  MINT  UNDER  THE  CHARTERED 
PRIVILEGES  OF  THE  ABBOT  OF  READING. 

:  ON  :  LVN)  4-I\E  .  .  IEVS  :        255 


Watford  find,  3  specimens  ;  L.  A.  Lawrence. 
As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

:  ON  :  LVNDE  :  ^.hENRIEVS  :        255 

Watford  find,  6  specimens ;  A.  A.  Banes. 

:  ON  :  LVND  *I\ENRIEVS  255 

British  Museum ;  L.  A.  Lawrence  ;  late 
J.  Toplis  ;  Lincoln  and  Son. 

^.JEDGER  :  ON  :  LVNDE  :  ^hENRIEVS          255 

S.Page. 

.J.2ED6AR  ON  LVND  ^.hENRIEV  255 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  only 
instance  of  the  use  of  the  Saxon  D  so  late 
as  the  date  of  this  type. 

4.2ET6AR  :  ON  :  LVND  :  .frftENRIEV  .          255 

N.  Hey  wood.  Mr.  Hey  wood  has  constantly 
contributed  information  upon  this  period  of 
the  coinage. 

^BALDEPIN  •  ON  :  LVN  :  ^hENRIEVS  255 

J.  Verity.  Obverse,  a  small  annulet  upon  the 
right  cheek.  As  to  this  moneyer  and  pecu- 
liarity, see  before. 

*BAL ON  LVN  .  hENRIEVS  255 

A.  H.  Sadd.     Similar. 


378 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

•f.  BALD  ....    ON  :  LVN  .  .  .  NEIEVS  :  255 

W.  Minton.  Obverse,  a  small  annulet  upon 
the  right  shoulder  and  upon  the  nose.  Bald- 
win continued  to  coin  in  the  following  reign, 
and  was  succeeded  by  SM7RPINE. 


RIC. 

"RIG"  is  given  in  Ruding's  list  of  Henry's  mints,  and 
as  the  name  "ETVEI"  appears  in  that  of  the  money ers, 
his  authority  was,  doubtless,  the  coin  of  type  253,  reading, 
obverse,  *fiENRI  EEX  A.  Reverse,  *ETYEI  ON  EIE, 
engraved  Withy  and  Ryall,  ii.  13.  Following  the  rules 
proffered  under  ATLE  and  BISES,  pages  102  and  117,  and 
bearing  in  mind  that  at  the  date  of  type  253  the  Norwich 
coins  used  the  form  0  NOB,  &c.,  instead  of  ON  NOE,  it  is 
evident  that  the  engraver  had  before  him  an  indistinct  coin 
of  that  mint  reading  -f-ETccTAN  0  NOEIE.  A  comparison 
of  the  engraving  referred  to,  with  this  legend,  will  disclose 
how  he  has  correctly  read  most  of  the  letters,  but  has 
accepted  fragments  of  the  letters  CQ  lor  V,  A  for  E  and 
N  for  I,  and  omitted  the  second  T  and  0,  for  which  last 
letter  he  has,  however,  left  a  space.  See  also  page  335. 


ROCHESTER. 

ROFECEASTER,     RoVECESTEIA,      RoFFA,      RoFTTM,      HJROFECEASTER, 

HROFECESTEB  ;     Domesday,     ROVECESTER  ;      Pipe     Roll, 
ROVEO'. 

The  earthworks  and  antiquities  of  Rochester  disclose  a 
complete  sequence  of  Roman,  British,  Saxon,  Danish,  and 
Norman  occupation,  but  evidences  of  an  earlier  foundation 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       379 

are  doubtful,  and  it  is  significant  that  in  Sir  John  Evans* 
exhaustive  work — The  Coins  of  the  Ancient  Britons — 
Rochester  is  one  of  the  few  early  cities  in  which  no  dis- 
coveries of  pre- Roman  coins  are  recorded.  The  foundation 
of  its  See  dates  from  \he  days  of  St.  Augustine,  and  it 
became  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  Saxon  Bishoprics. 
In  676  the  city  was  laid  in  ruins  by  the  Mercians,  and  in 
839  the  inhabitants  were  slaughtered  by  the  Danes. 
Under  the  year  885,  the  Saxon  Chronicle  records  that  the 
Danes  unsuccessfully  besieged  Rochester  and  wrought  a 
burh  there,  which  may  be  the  existing  mound  known  as 
Boley  Hill. 

1067.     King  William  created  his  half-brother  Odo,  Bishop 

of  Bayeux,  Earl  of  Kent. 

1082.  The  fall  of  Odo,  who  was  imprisoned  until  the 
King's  death. 

1086.  Domesday  notes.— "In  the  time  of  King  Edward 
the  City  of  Rochester  was  valued  at  100  shillings. 
When  the  Bishop  [Odo,  as  Earl  of  Kent]  received  it, 
it  was  worth  the  same.  Now  it  is  valued  at  £20, 
nevertheless  he  who  holds  it  [the  King's  Sheriff]  pays 
£40."  At  Aylesford  the  Bishop  of  Rochester  holds 
as  much  land  as  is  worth  17s.  4d.,  in  exchange  for 
the  land  on  which  the  Castle  [of  Rochester]  stands. 

1088.  Bishop  Odo,  having  revolted  against  Rufus,  seized 
and  defended  Rochester,  but  the  city  was  compelled 
to  surrender  and,  finally,  Odo  was  banished. 

1100.  King  Henry,  upon  his  accession,  grants  a  confirma- 
tion charter  to  Gundulf,  the  then  Bishop  of  Rochester. 
(Monasticon.) 

1108.     March  7th.     Death  of  Bishop  Gundulf. 

August  llth.     Ralph  of  Sees  is  appointed  Bishop. 

1114.  April  26th.  Bishop  Ralph  is  translated  to  the 
Archbishopric  of  Canterbury. 

August  15th.     Arnulf,  Abbot  of  Peterborough,  is 
appointed  Bishop. 

1124.  March.     Death  of  Bishop  Arnulf. 

1125.  May  23rd.     John,  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  is 
consecrated  Bishop. 

1126.  "The  King,   also,  by   the   advice  of  his  barons 


380  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

granted  to  the  Church  of  Canterbury,  and  to  William 
the  Archbishop  and  to  all  his  successors  the  custody 
and  constableship  of  the  castle  of  Rochester,  to  hold 
for  ever ;  with  liberty  to  make  in  the  same  castle  a 
fort  or  tower  as  they  pleased,  and  have  and  guard  it 
for  ever  ;  and  that  the  garrison  stationed  in  the  castle 
should  have  free  ingress  and  egress  on  their  own 
occasions,  and  should  be  security  to  the  Archbishop 
for  it.  (Florence;  Forester.) 

1130.  Pipe  Boll  notes. — Three  shillings  and  fourpence  is 
spent  on  repairing  the  bridge  at  Rochester  in  prepara- 
tion for  the  visit  of  the  King.  The  Bishop  accounts 
for  60  marks  of  silver  for  the  manor  of  Hedenham 
[which  he  held  under  charter  from  Rufus  in  return 
for  building,  or  rebuilding,  the  castle,  i.e.,  the  fortified 
enclosure — not  the  keep — at  Rochester.  See  Geoffrey 
de  Mandeville,  p.  338] .  Also  60  marks  that  he  need 
not  plead  against  Fulco  de  Foutibus  save  by  the 
estoppel  of  his  ecclesiastical  charters.  [This  is  the 
probable  meaning  of  a  very  obscure  passage.] 

1130.  May  7tb.  "The  City  of  Rochester  was  destroyed 
by  fire  while  the  King  was  there,  and  un  the  day 
following  the  new  Church  of  St.  Andrew  was  conse- 
crated by  William  the  Archbishop."  (Florence.) 

According  to  Hawkins,  p.  113,  there  seems  to  be  ground 
for  assigning  various  coins  of  Ecgberht  bearing  the  name 
of  St.  Andrew,  the  patron  saint  of  Rochester,  to  the  mint 
of  this  city,  and  Mr.  Grueber,  in  Num.  Chron.  1894, 
p.  40,  throws  further  light  on  the  subject,  by  assigning  to 
Rochester  certain  coins  of  his  predecessors  Coenwulf, 
Beornwulf,  and  Ceolwulf  I.  These  attributions  are  sup- 
ported by  the  fact  that  at  the  date  of  King  Athelstan's 
Law  the  mint  was  already  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
allowed  three  moneyers — two  for  the  King  and  one  for 
the  Bishop.  From  the  reign  of  the  latter  King  to  that  of 
William  I  its  coins  are  fairly  represented  in  our  cabinets. 

William  I  created  his  half-brother  Odo,  Bishop  of 
Bayeux,  Earl  of  Kent,  and  Domesday  tells  us  that  Odo 
"  received  the  City  of  Rochester."  Thus,  as  we  have 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       381 

seen  under  Bath,  p.  110-111,  Colchester,  p.  162,  and 
elsewhere,  such  a  grant  of  a  city  carried  with  it  the  King's 
mint,  and  therefore  two  of  the  three  moneyers,  mentioned 
in  Athelstan's  Law,  were  transferred  to  the  Earl,  but  the 
third  remained  the  privilege  of  the  Bishop. 

On  the  fall  of  Odo  in  1082,  the  earldom  was  escheated, 
and  therefore  the  right  to  the  two  moneyers  fell  into 
abeyance,  and  so  remained  until  about  a  century  later, 
when  they  were  re-established  upon  their  original  status 
as  royal  moneyers.  Hence,  at  the  date  of  Domesday — 
1086 — the  King  had  no  interest  in  the  mint  of  Rochester, 
and  so  it  is  not  scheduled  in  the  Survey.  But  Gundulf, 
Bishop  of  Rochester,  afterwards  the  favourite  of  Rufus, 
continued  to  exercise  his  privilege  of  the  third  moneyer. 

On  King  Henry's  accession  in  1100,  Gundulf  received 
his  confirmation  charter  and  type  251  (1100-1102)  is 
in  evidence  to-day  that  he  continued  his  coinage  at 
Rochester.  But  from  that  date  until  about  a  hundred 
years  afterwards  we  have  •  no  coin  bearing  the  name  of 
Rochester  upon  it.  If  we  had  no  records  of  English 
history  but  our  coins  we  should  erroneously  infer  that 
Gundulf  died  in  1103,  and  that  with  him  the  episcopal 
right  to  a  moneyer  at  Rochester  ceased  to  exist.  It  is 
certainly  clear  that,  after  him,  no  Bishop  did  exercise  the 
privilege  at  Rochester,  but  that  it  was  not  continued  after 
Michaelmas  1102  until  Gundulf  s  death,  March  7th,  1108, 
is  curious.  Perhaps  types  254,  253  and  252,  which  repre- 
sent those  years,  may  yet  be  forthcoming,  but  a  study  of 
the  history  of  the  closing  years  of  the  aged  Bishop  offers  a 
possible  explanation;  for,  in  1103,  he  seems  to  have 
virtually  retired  from  public  life  and  probably  neglected 
his  right  of  coinage.  Orderic  perhaps  hints  at  this  when 

he   tells  us   that  the  King  "  through  Bishop  Gundulf," 

3  p 


VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


382 


NUMISMATIC    CH.ROXK  LE. 


raised  Ralph  of  Sees  to  the  See  of  Rochester,"  which  can 
only  mean  that  the  Bishop  himself  arranged  the  appoint- 
ment of  his  own  successor,  who  was,  perhaps,  already  his 
deputy.  Of  ten  charters  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  which 
bear  Gundulf's  name,  nine  were  granted  between  1100 
and  1103,  but  the  tenth,  the  foundation  charter  of  St. 
Andrews,  Northampton,  is  dated  the  eighth  year  of  King 
Henry's  reign,  so  Gundulf  was  still  the  nominal  Bishop. 
We  can,  however,  quite  understand  that  after  the  two 
secular  moneyers  were  discontinued,  the  influence  of 
the  Church  of  Canterbury  would  be  brought  to  bear 
against  the  continuance  of  another  ecclesiastical  mint 
so  near  to  her  own,  and  when  we  notice  that  in  1102-3 
Wulfwine — the  then  moneyer  at  Rochester,  who  had 
but  just  succeeded  .^Elstan,  was  transferred  to  Canterbury, 
we  may  almost  take  it  for  granted  that  some  mutual 
arrangement  was  arrived  at,  by  which  the  Bishop's 
moneyer  and  privilege  were  removed  and  absorbed  into 
the  archiepiscopal  mint,  even  as  the  Castle  itself  was 
predestined  so  soon  to  be  granted  to  the  Mother  Church. 

Ruding,  quoting  a  MS.  note  by  Mr.  North,  tells  us 
that  Gledwine  and  Robert  were  moneyers  at  Rochester  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  I,  and,  on  the  authority  of  the  Textns 
Roftensis,  that 

"  Geldwine  and  Robert  were  then  moneyers  here.  The 
former  of  these  persons  granted  a  house,  &c.,  to  Bishop  Ernulph 
and  the  monks  of  St.  Andrew  (Rochester)  on  condition  that  ho 
Bhould  be  received  into  that  house  [church]." 

This  is  the  usual  error,  as  explained  under  Oxford,  page 
358,  caused  by  land  being  described  in  later  confirmation 
charters  under  its  original  description,  just  as  in  the  1130 
Pipe  Roll,  the  item  concerning  the  bridge  of  Rochester  is 
entered  under  "  the  land  of  Odo,  Bishop  of  Bayeux," 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       383 

although  thirty  years  had  elapsed  since  his  death. 
Geldwine's  original  grant  is,  however,  thus  recorded  in  the 
Monasticon,  but  without  any  date  being  assigned  to  it  — 

"  Geldewine  the  moneyer  gave  his  house  adjoining  the  ceme- 
tery of  the  monks." 

He  was,  without  doubt,  the  GELDEJ7INE  whose  name 
appears  upon  Canterbury  coins  of  the  reign  of  Edward 
the  Confessor,  and  was,  therefore,  a  moneyer  coining  at  that 
city  who  held  property  in  Rochester,  or  was  it,  also,  at 
Canterbury  ? 

This  again  supports  the  probability  that  the  Bishops  of 
Rochester  had,  as  in  the  similar  instances  of  the  Abbots 
of  Peterborough  and  Reading,  the  alternative  privilege  of 
transferring  their  moneyer  by  the  King's  writ  to  the 
mint  of  the  larger  city  and,  it  is  suggested,  this  is  what 
really  happened  when  coinage  at  Rochester  was  discon- 
tinued in  1102-3,  as  it  would  not  only  account  in  the  above 
passage  for  the  name  of  Robert  being  given  by  Mr.  North 
as  a  Rochester  moneyer,  for  we  find  his  name  on  the 
Canterbury  coins  of  the  last  type  of  Henry  I,  but  also  for 
the  issue  of  one  or  two  types  at  Canterbury  during  the 
period  of  the  exile  of  Archbishop  Anselm. 

The  royal  mint,  as  previously  mentioned,  seems  to  have 
been  revived  for  a  short  period  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
or  at  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

COINS. 
*IELSTAN  ON  EOF  *HNRI  EEX  251 


B.  Roth.  From  the  Montagu  Sale,  1886, 
£3  15s.,  and  the  Addington  collection. 
JELSTAN  is  a  contraction  for  Athelstan, 
and  both  forms  appear  on  the  Rochester 
coins  of  Rufus. 


384  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


ON  EOF  251 

Cuff  Sale,  1854,  from  theDimsdale  Sale,  1824  ; 
Chaffers,  1857.     Perhaps  the  previous  coin. 


ON  ROFI  tfrHNRI  REX  N       251 

L.  A.  Lawrence.    21  grs.  PI.  II.  No.  3.  From 

the  Boyne  Sale,  1896.  As  to  this  moneyer, 
see  before. 


>J<PVLFPII<E  ON  ROFI  »!<HNRI  REX  N       251 

British  Museum.     Probably  from  the  Tyssen, 
1802,  Sale. 


»i«PYLFPINE  ON  ROFI  »I<HNRI  REX  N       251 

Dymock  Sale,  1848.     From  the  Rich  collec- 
tion. 

The  specimen  of  type  257,  attributed  to  this  mint  in 
the  Phare  Sale,  1834,  is  a  Norwich  coin. 


ROMNEY. 

A  coin  of  type  262,  reading,  Obverse  *frh  .  .  RIEVS  R, 
and  Reverse  -f-PVLF  .  .  D  :  O.  RVII,  was  assigned  by  Mr. 
Rashleigh  to  this  mint  in  his  account  of  the  Watford 
find.  His  description  of  the  coins  was  written  fifty-two 
years  ago,  and  it  is  so  uniformly  accurate  that  this  is  almost 
the  only  correction  now  called  for.  The  reading,  if  com- 
plete, would  doubtless  be  -KPVLFPARD  :  ON  :  LVN,  and 
the  mint  London,  for  a  coin  from,  probably,  the  same  die 
has  the  L  in  LVN  so  blurred  as  to  almost  resemble  R. 
See  under  London,  p.  312.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
mint  at  Jlomnev  was  in  operation  at  so  late  a  date  as  the 
reign  of  Henry  I. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       385 


ST.  EDMUNDSBURY  (.SUFFOLK). 

SsYNT-EDMUNDR-BlRI,  BuRG-SANCTI-EDMUNDI,  S.  EDMUNDS- 
BURG  ;  Domesday,  SANCTUS  EDMUNDUS  and  ETMUNDUS  ; 
Pipe  Boll,  SANCTUS  EDMUNDUS. 

St.  Edmundsbury  or,  as  it  is  now  called,  Bury  St. 
Edmunds,  stands  upon  the  site  of  a  Roman  station,  but  it 
was  not  until  Edmund,  King  of  East  Anglia,  chose  it  as 
a  royal  burg,  that  it  attained  any  notoriety.  Hence  its 
name,  which  subsequently,  upon  his  canonization,  assumed 
its  present  form.  In  903  a  monastery  was  founded  here 
in  his  honour,  which,  after  being  enriched  by  King 
Athelstan,  received,  probably  from  Edgar,  a  grant  of  the 
burg  itself,  for  under  the  year  1014,  Florence  of  Worces- 
ter tells  us  that  Sweyn,  the  Dane,  exacted  an  enormous 
tribute  from  the  burg,  "  a  thing  which  no  one  had  dared 
to  do  since  the  town  was  given  to  the  church  of  the 
martyr  Edmund."  Canute,  however,  fully  atoned  for  his 
father's  sacrilege  by  showering  wealth  and  possessions 
upon  the  monastery,  until,  in  rank  and  importance,  it  was 
only  second  to  that  of  Glastonbury. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  time  of  King  Edward 
B[aldwin]  the  Abbot  held,  on  behalf  of  the  monks, 
118  men  with  full  power  to  give  and  sell  their  land, 
also  2  bondsmen  under  [?  each  of]  them.  The  town 
was  then  worth  £10,  now  it  is  worth  £20,  and  has 
[land]  in  length  a  mile  and  a  half,  and  in  breadth  as 
much.  Now  there  are  38  knights,  both  Norman  and 
English  [who  render  knight's  service],  and  under 
[?  each  of]  them  22  bondsmen.  Now,  in  all,  there 
are  342  houses. 

1100.  Robert,  the  son  of  Hugh,  Earl  of  Chester,  is 
appointed  Abbot.  (Orderic.) 

1102.  Michaelmas.  At  the  London  Synod,  Abbot 
Robert  is  deposed,  and  the  monks  immediately 
appointed  Robert,  Prior  of  Westminster,  as  Abbot. 
(Florence.) 


386  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

1107.     "This  year  died  Robert,  Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds 

bury."     (Sax.  Chron.) 
1114.     Nov.    1.     Aldbold    the    Jerusalemite    appointed. 

(Monasticon.) 

1119.     His  death.     (Orderic.) 
1121.     Anselm,   nephew   of  the    late   Archbishop  of  that 

name,  appointed  Abbot.     (Monasticon.) 
1123.     Accompanies  William,  Archbishop   of  Canterbury, 

to  Rome,  and  visits  the   King's  court  in  Normandy 

upon  his  return.     (Orderic.) 

1125.     In  Normandy,  witnesses  the  Charter  to  Reading. 
1130.     Pipe  Roll  notes. — The  Abbot  is  in  England,  and 

with   the   Abbot   of   Ramsey  is    contesting    a    plea 

against  the  Bishop  of  Ely. 

According  to  Orderic  and  our  early  charters,  the 
ancient  name  of  this  town  was  Beorhtric's  worthe  or 
Beorhtric's  Burg ;  hence  it  probably  owes  its  origin  to 
Beorhtric,  King  of  East  Anglia,  circa  850-55,  and,  doubt- 
less, some  of  his  coins,  and  of  those  of  his  successors, 
Eadmund  and  Ethelstan  II,  were  struck  here. 

The  passage  already  quoted  from  Florence  tells  us  that 
the  burg  had  been  granted  to  the  Abbot  of  St.  Ed- 
mundsbury  long  before  1014,  and  our  coins  suggest  that 
this  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Edgar.  We  have  already 
seen,  on  page  230,  how  he  encouraged  the  burgs  in  East 
Anglia,  and  we  may  almost  assume  that  the  charter  by 
which  the  burg  was  granted  to  tbe  Abbot  was  similar  to 
that  which  he  gave  to  the  Abbot  of  Peterborough,  re- 
ferred to  on  page  361,  and  in  which  he  included  the 
privilege  of  a  moneyer. 

We  have,  moreover,  coins  of  his  reign  bearing  the 
name  of  this  mint,  and  of  his  successors,  Edward  the 
Martyr  and  Ethelred  II.  But  in  the  time  of  tbe  latter 
Sweyn's  raid,  in  which,  the  monastery  and  town  were 
almost  destroyed,  no  doubt  stopped  the  coinage,  and  we 
have  no  further  examples  of  it  until  Edward  the  Con- 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       387 

fessor  came  to  the  throne.  That  the  privilege  was 
entirely  confined  to  the  Abbot  is  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  that  during  the  whole  of  this  period  only  one 
moneyer  at  a  time  coined  at  the  mint,  and  that  such 
moneyer  was  his  is  proved  by  the  following  confirmation 
charter  granted  by  Edward  the  Confessor  to  Abbot 
Baldwin  upon  his  installation  in  1065,  viz., — 

"Edward  King  gret  Aylmer  Bisscop  and  Toly  and  all  mine 
Theynes  on  Est  Angle  frendlike.  And  Ic  kithe  ihu  Thaet  Ic 
habbe  unnen  Baldewine  Abbot  one  MUNETERE  with  innen 
Seynt  Edmundr  Biri,  also  frelike  on  all  thing  to  habben  also 
me  mine  on  hande  stonden  ower  on  ani  mine  burgh  aldre- 
frelikest.  God  se  inn  alle  frend."  (Monasticon.) 

Domesday  corroborates  the  story,  and  shows  that  the 
burg,  and  therefore  the  mint,  remained  in  the  possession 
of  the  Abbot,  Baldwin,  who  in  1071  received  from  Pope 
Alexander  II  "  a  pastoral  staff  and  ring,"  and  lived  until 
1097-98. 

The  following  paragraph,  taken  from  the  introduction 
to  Memorials  of  St.  Edmund's  Abbey,  Rolls  Series,  1890, 
unconsciously  explains  the  deadlock  at  which  the  affairs  of 
the  mint  must  have  arrived  during  the  early  years  of  the 
reign  of  Henry  I.  It  should,  however,  be  pointed  out 
that  Abbot  Robert  was  one  of  the  numerous  illegitimate 
offspring  of  Earl  Hugh  who  are  mentioned  by  Orderic, 
for  he  left  but  one  legitimate  son. 

"  In  1100  Henry  I  gave  the  abbacy  to  Robert,  the  son  of 
his  cousin  Hugh  Lupus,  Earl  of  Chester.  This  seems  to  have 
been  a  bad  case  of  the  invasion  of  the  ecclesiastical  patronage 
by  the  secular  power  .  .  .  With  regard  to  this  and  similar 
appointments,  St.  Anselm,  then  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
appealed  to  Rome.  Herbert,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  took  this 
opportunity  of  reviving  the  claim  to  the  religious  superiority 
over  the  convent  of  St.  Edmund  which  had  been  made  by 
Arfast,  his  predecessor.  .  .  .  The  attempt  did  not  succeed  ;  bat 


388  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

in  1102,  at  a  council  convened  by  St.  Anselm,  Robert,  with 
several  other  Abbots,  was  deposed  from  office.  Another  Robert, 
a  monk  of  Westminster,  was  then  elected  by  the  convent  and 
administered  the  Abbey  with  abbatial  powers  during  five  years. 
All  this  time  he  was  not  regularly  consecrated  to  the  office, 
doubtless  because  the  King  refused  to  recognise  the  appoint- 
ment and  withheld  the  temporalities  ...  In  1107  the 
opposition  of  the  King  having  been  apparently  overcome, 
Robert  was  consecrated  Abbot  by  Archbishop  Anselm  on  the 
feast  of  the  Assumption  (Aug.  loth),  but  died  about  a  month 
afterwards." 

From  1100  to  1102,  therefore,  coinage  at  St.  Edmunds- 
bury,  by  Abbot  Robert  (I),  was  possible,  although  scarcely 
probable,  and  a  coin  of  type  251  (1100-1102)  was  de- 
scribed as  of  this  mint  in  the  Tyssen  Catalogue  of  1802, 
but  its  present  location  has  not  been  traced. 

It  will,  however,  be  noticed  how  exactly  the  story  of 
St.  Edmunds,  as  given  above,  corresponds  with  the  con- 
temporary history  of  Peterborough,  the  only  difference 
being  that  in  the  one  case  the  rejected  Abbot  of  Peter- 
borough was  still  enabled  to  exercise  his  grant  of  the 
temporalities  outside  the  precincts  of  the  Abbey  itself, 
because  his  mint  was  within  the  King's  burg  of  Stamford  ; 
but,  in  the  other,  the  Abbot  when  ousted  from  St. 
Edmundsbury,  was  shut  off  entirely  from  his  mint  within 
its  walls,  and  therefore,  as  the  King  refused  to  recognise 
the  now  Abbot  chosen  by  the  monks,  and  "  withheld  the 
temporalities  "  from  him,  coinage  there  was  impossible,  and 
so  types  254  and  253  are  absent. 

But  on  the  15th  of  August,  1106,  the  King,  says 
Florence,  "  had  a  meeting  with  Anselm,  the  Archbishop, 
and  they  came  to  terms  of  peace  and  concord  on  all 
matters  upon  which  they  had  differed."  Therefore 
Henry  granted  the  writ  which  is  quoted  by  Ruding  as 
follows : — 


.4    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      389 

"  A  writ  to  Herebert  Losinga,  Bishop  of  Norwich  [as  Spiritual 
Lord],  to  Roger  Bigot  [as  the  King's  Administrator  of  East 
AngliaJ,  R.  Passelawe  [as  Sheriff  of  East  Anglia]  and  Otho 
Goldsmith,  of  London  [the  cuneator]  ;  in  which  it  was  stated 
that  the  King  granted  that  S.  Edmund  should  have  his  moneyer 
within  his  vill,  with  all  th,e  privileges  of  a  mint,  in  like  manner 
as  he  had  it  in  the  time  of  the  King's  father,  and  in  like  manner 
as  the  King's  brother  had  granted  it  to  him  by  his  writ."  See 
page  27. 

Hence  type  252  (1106-1108)  now  appears  at  St. 
Edmundsbury.  In  1  LOT  Abbot  Robert  died,  and  for  seven 
years  the  abbacy  remained  vacant,  and  consequently  the 
mint  was  dormant.  Late  in  1114  Aldbold,  the  Jeru- 
salemite,  was  appointed,  and  held  the  monastery  until  his 
death  in  1119,  but,  as  yet,  no  coins  representing  this 
period  are  forthcoming.  It  may  be,  that  the  explanation 
is  that  Henry,  still  smarting  under  his  defeat  in  the 
matter  of  the  investitures,  was  not  content  with  having 
retained  the  revenue  of  the  monastery  for  seven  years, 
but  never  sanctioned  the  monks'  appointment  of  Aldbold 
and  continued  to  withhold  the  temporalities.  This  sup- 
position is  supported  by  the  fact  that  after  the  death  of 
Aldbold,  it  was  not  until  two  more  years  had  elapsed  that 
the  King  appointed  a  successor,  and  meanwhile  he  con- 
tinued to  retain  the  revenue  of  the  monastery,  and  the 
coinage  was  necessarily  in  abeyance. 

From  the  appointment  of  Abbot  Anselm  in  1121,  how- 
ever, the  differences  between  the  King  and  the  monks  of 
St.  Edmund  seem  at  an  end,  for  we  read  of  the  Abbot 
attending  the  King's  court,  and  we  find  his  name  as  a 
witness  to  the  royal  charters.  The  mint,  therefore,  is  re- 
opened, and  type  IV  (1121-1123)  is  in  evidence  before 
us.  But  in  1123  Anselm  accompanied  the  King  to 
Normandy,  and  was  still  there  in  1125,  when  he  witnessed 
the  charter  to  Reading,  hence  type  258,  which  represents 

VOL.    1.    FOURTH    SKRIES.  «*   K 


390  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

those  j'ears,  is  absent  from  our  St.  Edmundsbury  coins. 
From  1126  to  the  close  of  the  reign,  however,  the  Abbot 
was  in  England,  and  consequently  types  265  (1126-1128), 
262  (1128-1131),  and  255  (1131-1135)  are  all  present  in 
our  cabinets. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  the  subjoined  list  certain 
coins  are  now  given  to  this  mint  which  have  hitherto 
been  assigned  to  Sandwich.  The  reasons  for  this  correc- 
tion are  as  follows  : — There  are  coins  of  the  following 
reign  of  Stephen,  which,  although  reading  ON  :  SAN, 
nevertheless  bear  upon  their  face  certain  curious  evi- 
•dences  that  they  were  struck  at  St.  Edmundsbury. 
Therefore,  when  we  observe  that  some  of  Henry's  coins 
read  ON  :  SANTI  EDM  we  are  justified  in  assigning  any 
contraction,  of  that  form  of  the  name,  to  the  same  mint, 
and,  further,  when  we  find  such  coincidences  as 
GILEBEKT  ON  SAN  and  6ILEBEET  ON  EDMVN  ;  60DEIE 
ON  SAN  and  60DEIE  ON  SANTIE ;  GODEIE  ON  SANT  and 
60DEIE  ON  S.EDM  in  Henry  I's  reign,  and  similar 
coincidences  in  that  of  Stephen,  when,  in  one  case,  the 
same  obverse  die  is  used  to  both  forms  of  the  reverse 
legend,  the  correction  seems  to  be  assured. 

The  Abbots  of  St.  Edmundsbury  retained  their  privi- 
lege of  coinage  until  the  reign  of  Edward  III. 

COINS. 
^.ADALBOT  :  ON  SAN  *r»ENEI  EE  252 

H.  M.   Reynolds.      22  grs.     PI.  VIII.  No.  3 
From  H.  P.  Smith  Sale,  1886. 

•frADALBOT  ON  SAN  252 

Murrell  Sale,  1886. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       391 

•frGILEBERT  :  ON    .  .  N  ,j,hE  ....  EX  :      IV 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  This  spelling  of  the  moneyer's 
name  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  Henry's 
reign. 


•frGILEBERT  ON  EDM  *hENRIE :  255 

Lincoln  and  Son. 

•frGILEBERT  ON  EDMVN  ^fxENRIEY  .  255 

Watford  find. 

.J.GILEBERT  ON  SAN  .  IiENRIE  :  255 

Watford  find ;  A.  A.  Banes.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  this  unusual  form  of  the  obverse  legend 
on  type  255  occurs  on  the  coin  above  reading 
ON  EDM. 

.  .  ILEBERT * 255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens. 

•frGILLEBER *hENRIE  .  .  255 

Watford  find. 

*GODRIE  :  ON  :  S  :  EDM  :        *hENRIEVS  R  •     265 

J.  Murdoch.  PI.  VII.  No.  1.  From  the 
Montagu,  1896,  £14  15s.,  illustrated  No. 
298  in  the  catalogue,  Shepherd,  1885, 
£13  10s.,  Durrant,  1847,  and  Tyssen, 
1802,  Sales.  Probably  the  coin  engraved 
Ruding,  ii.,  5. 

*[60D]RIE:ON:SANTIE:       *HENR  .  .  .  S  R    262 
H.  M.  Reynolds.     From  the  Simpson  Rostron 
Sale,  1892. 


392  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLK. 

.  60DRIE  :  ON  :  SANT  .frhENRIEVS 

Watford  find.     Corrected. 


*ODDE  :  OX  [SJANTIED 


262 


262 


P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.     Recently  found   at 
Bury  St.  Edmunds. 


.J.PVLFPART  :  ON  :  SAN 


REX 


Bury  St.  Edmunds  Museum,     Found  at  Whep- 
stoad,  within  five  miles  of  Bury  St.  Edmunds. 

.....  AR  ON  SANTIEDM 

H.  P.  Smith  Sale,  1886. 
Southgate,  1795,  Tyssen,  1802,  Salw. 


263 


262 


2*1 


SALISBURY  (WILTSHIRE). 

SARESBERIA,  SEARBYRIG,    SERIBERIA,    SEREBURH  ; 
Domesday,  SARISBERIE  ;  Pipe  Roll,  SARUM. 


The  deserted  mound  of  Old  Sarum  marks  the  site  of 
one  of  the  few  great  cities  of  the  world  which  have  dis- 
appeared in  historical  times.  It  is  true  that  the  mighty 
earthworks,  as  an  object  lesson  of  the  ultimate  futility  of 
man's  greatest  works,  still  overlook  the  mediaeval  city  to 
which  they  have  given  their  name,  but  their  respective 
histories  are  as  remotely  separated  as  the  stories  of  war 
and  peace.  Old  Sarum  is  a  relic  of  the  Neolithic  age, 
and  in  turn  served  as  a  stronghold  for  Celt,  Roman, 
Briton,  Saxon,  Dane  and  Norman,  until,  worn  out  by 
time,  it  is  now  barren  of  mankind.  From  the  date,  522, 
when  "  Cynric  fought  against  the  Britons  at  the  place 
which  is  called  Searobyrig  and  put  them  to  flight,"  it  had 
probably  more  of  the  character  of  a  fortress  than  of  a 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGX    OF    HENRY  I.       393 

city,  but  its  greatest  wave  of  prosperity  was  when  the 
ancient  See  of  Sherborne  was  centred  within  its  walls, 
and  its  bishop,  Roger  of  Salisbury,  was  chief  justiciary 
of  all  England,  and  administrator  of  the  realm  in  the 
days  of  Henry  I. 

1069.  The  ancient  See  of  Sherborne  was  translated  to 
Salisbury.  (Florence.) 

1086  Domesday  notes. — "From  half  the  mill  at  Salis- 
bury the  King  has  20s.  by  weight.  From  the  tertius 
denarius  of  Salisbury  the  King  has  £6."  The  Bishop 
holds  Salisbury.  In  the  time  of  King  Edward  it 
paid  geld  for  50  hides.  There  are  82  carrucates  of 
land,  of  wbich  10  hides  are  in  lordship  and  8  carru- 
cates. "Here  are  25  villeins  and  50  bondsmen  with 
17  carrucates.  In  Wilton  7  burgesses  belonging  to 
this  Manor  pay  65  pence.  In  the  Manor  there  are 
4  mills  of  47s.  7d.  and  half  a  mill  of  30s. :  also  142 
acres  of  meadow  :  pasture  20  quarentines  long  and 
10  broad,  and  woods  4  quarentines  long  and  2  broad. 
Of  the  lands  of  this  Manor  Edward  [of  Salisbury] 
holds  5  hides,  Odo  [?  of  Winchester]  5  hides,  and 
Hugh  [?  Lasne]  3  hides,  less  a  fifth.  Those  who 
held  these  [hides]  in  the  time  of  King  Edward 
could  not  be  separated  from  the  Bishop.  There  are  in 
lordship  5  carrucates  and  3  villeins  and  17  bondsmen 
with  2  carrucates.  The  lordship  of  the  Bishop  is 
worth  £47.  What  the  men  hold  is  valued  at  £17. 

Edward  of  Salisbury,  the  Sheriff,  has  per  annum 
from   the    [tertius]  denarius  which    pertains   to    the 
shrievalty  [of  Wiltshire],  also  large  payments  hi  kind 
and  otherwise,  which  are  set  out  in  detail. 
1100.     William   II,  at  the   time   of  his  death,  held  the 
bishopric  of  Salisbury  in  his  own  hands.     (Florence.) 
1102.     Roger,    King   Henry's    Chancellor,  is   appointed 
Bishop,  but  owing  to  the  dispute  as  to  investitures, 
his  consecration  is  postponed.     (Florence.) 

1106.  The  King  holds  his  Whitsuntide  court  at  Salisbury. 

1107.  August    llth.      Bishop     Roger    is     consecrated. 
(Florence.)     Of    him    Malmesbury    says  :— "  Henry 
committed  even  the  kingdom  to  his  fidelity  ;  made 
him  Chancellor,  and,  not  long  afterwards,  Bishop  of 
Salisbury.     Roger  therefore  decided  causes,  regulated 
the    expenditure,  and  had  charge  of  the  Treasury. 


394  MMISMATIC    CHROXK'LE. 

Such  were  his  occupations  when  the  King  was  in 
England,  such,  without  associate  or  inspector,  when 
he  was  absent  in  Normandy.  .  .  .  He  built  anew 
the  church  of  Salisbury  [Old  Sarum],  and  beautified 
it  in  such  a  manner  that  it  yields  to  none  in 
England." 

1114.  Edward  of  Salisbury  is  in  Normandy,  and 
witnesses  the  King's  charter  to  the  Abbey  of  St. 
Georges  de  Bocherville.  (Docts.  of  France.) 

1116.  March  19th.  "The  Earls  and  Barons  of  all 
England  did  homage  and  swore  fealty,  at  Salisbury, 
to  William,  the  King's  son,"  as  heir-apparent  to  the 
throne.  (Melrose.) 

1119.  August.     At  the  battle  of   Bremule  "Edward  of 
Salisbury     carried    the    standard,    whose    approved 
intrepidity  was  in  high  renown,  and   never  failed  him 
even  when  fighting  to  the  death."     (Orderic.) 

1120.  November  25th.     Edward  of  Salisbury  refused  to 
sail  in  the  ill-fated  White  Ship,  and  "  came  on  shore, 
having   left   the   vessel  upon    observing  that  it  was 
overcrowded   with  riotous   and    headstrong  youths." 
(Orderic.) 

1123.  On  sailing  to  Normandy,  Henry  "  committed  all 
England  to  the  care  and  administration  of  Bishop 
Roger."  (Sax.  Chron.) 

1125.  Christmas.     Bishop  Roger,  as   Chief  Justiciary  of 
England,  holds  the  inquisition   of  the  moneyers  at 
Winchester.     (See  pages  80-81.) 

1126.  September.     The    custody   of    Robert,   Duke    of 
Normandy,   is   transferred    from   Bishop    Roger    to 
Robert  of  Gloucester.     (See  page  120.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Twenty  shillings  are  paid  out  of 
the  county  returns  for  making  a  gate  [or  door]  to  the 
crypt  ["cellarium,"  but  possibly  the  courtyard]  of 
the  keep  of  Salisbury  ;  and  from  the  market  toll  of 
Salisbury,  which  pertained  to  the  firma  of  Wilton, 
which  the  King  gave  to  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  as 
the  Queen  had  before  given  it  to  the  church  of  Salis- 
bury, 40s.  by  number.  [See  the  charters  to  which 
these  items  refer  in  the  Monasticon.]  The  Bishop 
receives  large  grants  from  most  of  the  county  returns. 
Under  Northamptonshire  and  Leicestershire,  Paganus 
de  Hocton  accounts  for  200  marks  of  silver  and  2 
marks  of  gold  [upon  his  marriage  with]  the  widow  of 
Edward  of  Salisbury,  and  his  father  for  £200,  in 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       395 

addition,  on  his  behalf,  for  the  same  fees.  Walter  of 
Salisbury  and  Patrick  de  Cad.urc  receive  grants  from 
the  returns  of  Wiltshire,  and  the  latter  from  those  of 
several  other  counties.  Humphrey  de  Bohun,  under 
Wiltshire,  accounts  for  £22  10s.,  as  successor  to  his 
father's  [?  father-in-law's]  land,  and  400  silver  marks, 
that  he  might  be  Dapifer  to  the  King ;  also  60  silver 
marks  in  case  he  should  be  able  to  claim  the  land  of 
Mere  [Wilts] . 

1131.  September  8th.  At  the  Council  of  Northampton, 
Walter  of  Salisbury  and  Humphrey  de  Bohun  witness 
the  King's  charter  to  the  See  of  Salisbury. 

The  name  of  the  mint  of  Old  Sarum  makes  its  first 
appearance  upon  our  coins  in  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II, 
and  is  continued  upon  those  of  all  his  successors  until 
the  Conquest.  But  the  output  had  been  waning  until, 
in  the  time  of  the  Confessor,  it  would  seem  as  if  the 
number  of  moneyers  never  exceeded  two. 

A  similar  condition  obtains  under  both  of  the  Wil- 
liams, and  the  types  issued  are  of  an  intermittent 
character.  This,  at  once,  prohibits  the  supposition  that 
Salisbury  was  either  a  royal  mint,  or  that  the  privilege 
of  coinage  was  in  the  hands  of  its  Bishop.  The  account 
of  the  city  as  given  us  in  Domesday  is  peculiar,  and 
worthy  of  a  closer  study  than  these  pages  will  admit. 
We  are  told  that  "  the  Bishop  holds  Salisbury,"  but  then 
follows  its  description,  which  is  not  that  of  the  burg,  but 
of  the  whole  district  of  some  three  thousand  acres.  More- 
over, it  is  worth  £47,  and  as  the  tertius  denarius  of  the 
burg  was  only  £6,  it  is  quite  certain  that  what  the  Bishop 
held  was  not  the  burg,  or,  at  least,  not  the  burg  alone. 
But  there  are  more  satisfactory  proofs  that  the  Bishops  of 
Salisbury  never  held  either  the  burg  or  the  castle  of 
Salisbury,  and,  shortly,  the  following  are  amongst  them. 
Six  years  after  the  date  of  Domesday  the  foundation 


396  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

charter  of  its  cathelral  was  granted,  and  amongst  other 
benefits  it  gave  to  the  Bishop  "  et  ante  postam  castelli 
Seriberieusis  terrain  ex  ultra  parte  vise  in  ortorum  domo- 
rumque  canonieorum  necessitate "  (Monasticon),  which, 
if  the  Bishop  already  held  the  burg,  need  not,  and  could 
not,  have  been  granted  to  him.  The  castle  of  Devizes 
was  the  stronghold  of  Bishop  Roger ;  and  there,  and  not 
at  Salisbury,  was  Robert,  Duke  of  Normandy,  kept  prisoner 
by  him.  In  1130  the  Pipe  Roll  conclusively  proves  that 
the  castle  of  Salisbury  was  still  in  the  King's  hands,  for 
its  repairs  are  disbursed  by  the  sheriff  out  of  the  county 
returns.  Finally,  it  was  owing,  in  part,  to  the  oppression 
of  the  King's  castellans  of  Old  Sarum  that  the  episcopal 
chair  was  ultimately  removed  to  the  mediaeval  and  modern 
city. 

What  the  Bishop  held,  therefore,  according  to  Domes- 
day, was  probably  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  Hundred  of 
Underditch,  i.e.,  under  the  ditches  of  Old  Sarum.  But 
we  are  told  that  Edward  held  five  hides,  Odo  five,  and 
Hugh  three  and  four-fifths  of  a  hide,  which  in  the  time 
of  the  Confessor  could  not  be  separated  from  what  the 
Bishop  held  ;  or,  according  to  the  above  theory,  could 
not  be  separated  from  the  hundred.  This  land  is  valued 
at  £17,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  third  penny  of 
Salisbury  was  worth  £6,  it  looks  very  much  as  if  it 
represented  the  burg.  "  Edward,"  too,  must  surely  be 
Edward  of  Salisbury,  and  we  know,  from  the  fact  that  his 
grandson  was  hereditary  castellan,  and  was  as  such 
created  Earl  of  Salisbury,  that  Edward  was  the  King's 
castellan,  and  Domesday  tells  us  that  he  held  also  the 
hereditary  shrievalty  of  Wiltshire. 

Without,  however,  laying  stress  on  the  possible  identity 
of  the  134-  hides  with  the  burg,  it  seems  certain,  from  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      397 

subsequent  history  of  the  family,  that  Edward  of  Salis- 
bury was  the  King's  castellan  of  the  burg.  The  King, 
at  the  time  of  Domesday,  held  the  tertius  denarius  in  his 
own  hands,  and  it  is  very  possible  that  it  survived  to  him 
with  those  of  several  cities  in  the  south-west  of  England, 
which  we  know  had  been  possessed  by  Queen  Matilda, 
and  fell  into  his  hands  upon  her  death.  Edward's  posi- 
tion, therefore,  seems  to  have  been  very  similar  to  that 
of  Roger  Bigod  at  Ipswich  (see  page  231),  and  in  all 
probability  he,  also,  subsequently  received  the  tertius 
denarius  itself ;  for,  as  hereditary  sheriff  of  the  county, 
he,  like  De  Grantmesnil  at  Leicester,  was  almost  but 
not  quite  an  earl. 

That  the  Bishop  had  no  share  whatever  in  the  mint  of 
Salisbury  is  further  proved  by  the  1146  Bull  of  Pope 
Eugenius  III.     This  Bull  schedules  the  various  posses- 
sions and  rights  of  the  See  of  Salisbury,  and,  as  to  its 
form  and  purpose,   is  identical  in  every  respect  with  his 
Bull  of  the  same  date  to  Peterborough.     Yet,  although 
the  latter  twice  details  the  moneyer  at  Stamford,  there  is, 
in  the  former,  no  allusion  to  any  right  of  coinage  in  the 
confirmation  of  the  many  privileges  of  the   Bishop  of 
Salisbury.     That  at  the  date  of  Domesday  the  mint  of 
Salisbury  was  not  in  the  King's  hands  is  proved  by  the 
absence  of  any  item  of  the  payment  of  a  firma  or  fine  by 
its  moneyers.     And  that  it  was  not  in  the  hands  of  the 
burgesses  is  similarly  clear  from  the  entire  omission  of 
any    mention    of   them    or    of  their  firma.     Therefore 
little  doubt  remains  that  it  was  a  grantee's   mint,  and 
the  sole  prerogative  of  Edward  of  Salisbury.      Had  it 
been  otherwise,  we  may  rest  assured  that  Henry  I  would 
have  granted  some  share,  at  least,  in  it  to  his  favourite 
minister  and  ecclesiastic,  Bishop  Roger. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  3  T 


398  NUMISMATIC   CHROXICXE. 

Who  was  Edward  of  Salisbury?  According  to  our  old 
friend  Camden,  he  was  the  younger  son  of  Walter  de 
Evreux,  Earl  of  Roumare,  but  according  to  "  The  Norman 
People,"  he  was  the  second  son  of  Gerald  de  Roumare, 
the  Dapifer.  He  seems  therefore  to  have  been  the  second, 
or  more  probably  the  third  son  of  the  House  of  Rou- 
mare and  as  such  was  uncle  to  William  de  Roumare 
afterwards  Earl  of  Lincoln  (page  262.)  The  senior  line, 
which  held  Roumare  and  other  large  possessions  of  the 
family  in  Normandy,  soon  became  extinct  (Camden)  and 
therefore  out  of  some  confusion  we  may  gather  the 
following  pedigree.  Gerald  the  Dapifer  left  seven  sons, 
of  whom  Robert  Fitz  Gerald,  Roger  Fitz  Gerald  and 
Edward  of  Salisbury  were  the  three  eldest.  The  first 
was  the  Robert  Fitz  Gerald  who  was  Standard-Bearer  to 
Bohemond  in  the  first  Crusade,  and  the  second  was  the 
father  of  William  de  Roumare. 

From  the  date  of  Domesday  to  the  accession  of  Henry  I, 
Edward  of  Salisbury's  principal  residence  was  the  castle 
from  which  he  derived  his  name,  and,  in  consequence,  most 
of  the  intermediate  types  of  the  coinage  are  in  evidence 
from  his  mint  at  Salisbury.  This  was  also  the  local  condition 
of  affairs  during  the  first  six  years  of  King  Henry's  reign, 
and  therefore  types  251  (1100-1102),  254  (1102-1104), 
and  253  (1104-1106)  are  duly  represented  amongst  our 
coins  of  this  mint.  But  in  1106  he  no  doubt  accompanit  d 
Henry  to  Normandy  and  fought  at  Tinchebrai  to  earn 
that  "  approved  intrepidity  and  high  renown  "  in  battle 
which  is  accorded  to  him  by  Orderic.  At  this  date  his 
brother  Roger  de  Roumare  was  lately  dead,  for  Lucia,  his 
widow,  re- married  and  became  the  mother  of  Ralph  de 
Gernons,  at  the  latest,  in  1107  ;  as  the  latter  was  of 
age,  and  succeeded  to  the  Earldom  of  Chester  in  1129 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       399 

(page  149).  Edward  of  Salisbury  thus  acquired  the 
large  possessions  of  Roger  in  Normandy,  as  guardian  to 
the  infant  William  de  Roumare.  About  this  time,  too, 
probably  occurred  the  death  of  his  eldest  brother  Robert, 
the  Standard-Bearer,  whose  line,  we  know,  soon  became 
extinct.  It  is  true  that  a  Robert  fitz  Gerold's  name 
occurs  in  much  later  charters,  but  as  it  is  usually  in  con- 
nection with  the  retainers  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester  and 
appears  during  Stephen's  reign,  it  cannot  represent  the 
Robert  whose  prowess  in  the  first  Crusade  was  second  to 
none  and  who  was  Lord  of  Roumare.  That  Edward  had 
succeeded  to  Robert's  vast  estates  and  to  his  hereditary 
title  of  Standard-Bearer  to  Normandy  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  he  "  carried  the  Standard"  in  1119  at  the  battle 
of  Bremule,  and  that  he  was  guardian  of  the  young 
William  de  Roumare  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that 
Edward  of  Salisbury  and  William  de  Roumare  are 
mentioned  by  Orderic  in  the  same  sentence  as  refusing 
to  sail  in  the  ill-fated  White  Ship  in  1120.  Orderic  also 
says  that  one  Walter  similarly  escaped,  who  probably  was 
Edward's  son — afterwards  Walter  of  Salisbury. 

We  have  the  evidence  of  the  charter  of  St.  Georges 
that  Edward  of  Salisbury  was  in  Normandy  in  1114,  and 
so  far  as  an  extensive  search  has  disclosed,  no  English 
charter  of  later  date  than  1106  bears  his  name.  Hence 
we  may  assume  that  from  the  time  of  Tinchebrai  in  1106 
to  his  refusing  to  sail  in  the  White  Ship  in  1120,  Edward 
was  concerned  in  the  wars  in  Normandy  and  in  the 
administration  of  the  much  larger  estates  of  the  family 
in  that  country.  Thus  coincidentally  with  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  King's  favourite,  Roger,  Bishop  of  Salisbury, 
Edward  the  castellan  relinquishes  the  city  to  his  care  and 
joins  the  campaigns  in  Normandy,  hence  coinage  at 


400  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Salisbury  is  necessarily  discontinued.  The  White  Ship 
was  the  last  of  the  fleet  to  sail  on  the  King's  return  to 
England  in  November,  1120,  and  whether  Edward  subse- 
quently followed  him  or  not  is  a  matter  of  doubt,  but  if 
we  are  justified  in  taking  Orderic's  expression  "  even 
when  fighting  to  the  death,"  in  its  literal  sense,  we  may 
assume  that  he  remained  in  Normandy  and  perished 
in  one  of  the  numerous  battles  there,  for  England  rested 
in  peace. 

Edward  died  before  .1129,  for  in  that  year  his  widow 
had  already  been  married  to  Pain  de  Hocton.  He  left  a 
son,  Walter  of  Salisbury,  and  a  daughter,  the  wife  of 
Humphrey  de  Bohun.  His  large  possessions  in  England 
were,  we  are  told,  divided  between  his  son,  Walter  of 
Salisbury  and  his  daughter,  the  wife  of  Humphrey  de 
Bohun,  though  Walter  would,  of  course,  take  Salisbury 
and  the  family  honours.  Both  Walter  and  Humphrey 
therefore  return  to  England  to  take  possession  of  their 
inheritance,  and  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  the 
former,  who  is  styled  "  Walter  de  Salisbury,"  was  receiv- 
ing revenue  from  Wiltshire  and  the  adjoining  county, 
and  that  the  latter  was  paying  relief  on  the  death  of  "  his 
father,"  perhaps  his  father-in-law,  and  had  been  appointed 
a  Royal  Dapifer.  In  September,  1131,  they  are  together 
at  the  Council  of  Northampton  and  witness  the  charter 
to  Salisbury.  Hence  type  262  (1129-1131)  is  in  evidence, 
amongst  our  coins  of  Salisbury,  of  this  visit  to  England. 
As  early  as  in  the  reign  of  Rufus,  Walter  had  married 
Sibilla  of  Cadurc,  and  their  son  Patrick — afterwards  first 
Earl  of  Salisbury — took  his  mother's  name,  and  as  Patrick 
de  Cadurc  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  1130  Pipe  Boll. 
This  pedigree  is  proved  by  a  later  charter  to  Salisbury 
commencing  "  Walterus,  Edwardi  vicecomitis  films,  et 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      401 

Sibilla  uxor  mea  et  heres  noster  Comes  Patricias  "  (Geof. 
de  Hand.  276). 

We  know  no  more  of  Walter  of  Salisbury  durino-  the 

^ 

few  remaining  years  of  this  reign,  but  as  his  name  does 
not  occur  in  any  English  charters  in  the  meantime  and 
as  Humphrey  de  Bohun  certainly  returned  to  Normandy, 
we  may  assume  that  his  visit  to  England  was  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  receiving  his  hereditary  estates  in  this 
country  and  that  he  preferred  to  return  to  his  larger 
possessions  in  Normandy.  This  only  would  account  for 
the  absence  of  type  255  from  our  coins  of  Salisbury. 

The  mint  seems  to  have  been  intermittently  continued 
until  the  reign  of  Henry  III,  when,  no  doubt,  together 
with  the  old  city,  it  ceased  its  existence. 

COINS. 
•frGODRIE  ON  SAER  251 

E.  H.  Evans  Sale,  1894.  From  Rusher  Davis 
Sale,  1893,  "  found  at  St.  John's."  The 
name  of  the  mint  was  read  SHER,  for,  on 
this  type,  the  letter  A  is  often  represented 
by  two  parallel  uprights,  joined,  as  in  the 
modern  H.  A  Godric  coined  here  in  the 
time  of  William  I. 

•J.OSBRN  ON  SERB  *HEN 254 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University. 
Osbern  coined  here  in  the  two  previous 
reigns. 

*OSBERN  ON  SEAR  *hENRI  REX  AI      253 

This  reading  seems  to  have  been  taken  from 
the  coin  itself,  but  the  reference  has  been 
omitted. 


402  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

•J.OSBERN  OX  SEAR  tiENRI  REX  AI          253 

Neville  Rolfe  Sale,  1882. 

^.OSBER  .    ON    SEAR  253 

Sale,  February,  1866. 

ON  :  SERBIK  .frriENRIEVS  :         262 

British  Museum.  The  moneyer's  name  was 
probably  Sibern,  see  the  next  coin. 

.  .  BEE  .  :  .  N   S[E]R[B]E        .  rvEN  .  .  .  .  S  R  :      262 

Watford  find.  Mr.  Rashleigh,  however,  merely 
dots  the  letters  of  the  moneyer's  name,  and 
schedules  the  coin  under  "  Uncertain  mints." 


SANDWICH  (KENT). 
SANDWIC,  SANDWICH,  SANDWICUM;  Domesday,  SANDWICH. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  Sandwich  was  yet  in  existence 
when  the  Roman  legions  landed  at  Rutupiae,  or  when 
the  Saxon  fleet  disembarked  at  Ebbsfleet  in  its  imme- 
diate vicinity,  but  even  then  so  convenient  a  harbour 
would  scarcely  be  neglected.  It  was  at  Sandwich  that 
Athelstan  fought  his  great  naval  battle  with  the  Danes  in 
851  and  captured  nine  of  their  ships ;  but  during  the  last 
fifty  years  of  the  Saxon  rule  in  England  there  was  scarce 
a  disturbance  by  sea  or  by  land  but  the  town  was  the 
scene  of  strife  or  plunder. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — The  Archbishop  [of  Canter- 
bury] holds  this  burg,  and  it  is  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  monks,  and  returned  similar  service  to  the  King 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       403 

as  Dover,  which  the  men  of  the  burg  testify.  Before 
King  Edward  gave  it  to  the  Holy  Trinity  it  paid  £15 
to  the  King.  At  the  time  of  the  death  of  King 
Edward  it  was  not  [let]  saifirma.  When  the  Arch* 
bishop  received  it,  it  paid  £40  as/rwm,  and  40,000 
herrings  for  the  rbustenance  of  the  monks.  In  the 
year  in  which  this  survey  is  made  it  paid  £50  asjirmu 
and  herrings  as  before.  In  the  time  of  King  Edward 
there  were  here  307  inhabited  houses,  now  there 
are  76  more,  i.e.  883. 

By  a  charter  dated  June  3rd,  966,  King  Edgar  granted 
to  the  Church  at  Canterbury  the  port  and  town  of 
Sandwich,  together  with  all  the  liberties  and  customs  of 
the  King  which  pertained  to  them,  and  in  1023  Canute 
confirmed  the  same.  But  in  neither  of  these  charters, 
which  are  set  out  in  full  in  the  Diplomatarium  Anglicum 
^Evi  Saxonici,  is  there  any  mention  of  a  mint. 

Upon  the  authority  of  the  British  Museum  Catalogue 
an  incidental  reference  has  been  made  on  page  174  to  the 
origin  of  this  mint  in  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  but  the 
evidence  in  support  of  this  contention  solely  rests  upon 
the  legend  -frSPAETEAE  MO  SAN,  and  when  this  is  com- 
pared with  a  Stamford  coin  of  the  same  King  and  type, 
reading  *SPAETGAR  MO  STA,  it  is  shaken.  According 
to  Ruding  there  is,  or  was,  a  coin  reading  SANDVVI 
of  the  reign  of  Canute  which,  if  correctly  read,  must  have 
been  issued  at  Sandwich.  But  the  earliest  tangible  evi- 
dence we  have  of  the  existence  of  the  mint  is  on  certain 
coins  of  the  Confessor  reading  ON  SADJ7  and  ON  SANDJ7I, 
and  in  view  of  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  a  mint  in 
the  before-mentioned  charters,  it  is  not  improbable  that  it 
was  established  by  him  in  a  grant  to  the  church  of  Can- 
terbury. It  was  continued  in  the  reigns  of  William  I 
and  II. 

Domesday  tells  us  that  although  the  Archbishop  held 


404  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

the  town  it  rendered  the  same  service  to  the  King  as 
Dover.  Sandwich,  therefore,  supplied  "  20  ships  to  the 
King's  fleet  for  15  days  in  every  year,  each  being  manned 
by  21  men."  When,  therefore,  King  Henry  ascended 
the  throne  in  1100,  there  was  no  reason  why  type  251 
(1100-1101)  should  not  have  been  issued  here,  although, 
as  yet,  it  is  not  to  be  found.  But  in  1101,  when  the  fleet 
betrayed  the  King  upon  the  emergency  of  Duke  Robert's 
invasion,  and  deserted  to  the  enemy,  Sandwich,  as  one  of 
the  burgs  responsible  for  the  maritime  defence,  would,  as 
we  have  seen  happened  in  the  similar  cases  of  Dover, 
Lewes,  and  Oxford,  suffer  the  King's  displeasure  and  lose 
its  privileges.  Thus,  whether  the  moneyer  was  directly 
under  the  Archbishop  or  whether,  as  at  Dover,  Oxford, 
and  Lewes,  the  burgesses  farmed  the  mint  in  the  firma  of 
their  burg,  and  the  latter  is  the  more  probable,  the  privi- 
lege would  be  withdrawn,  and  coinage  of  necessity 
cease. 

In  his  account  of  the  Watford  find,  Num.  Chron.  xii. 
152,  Mr.  Rashleigh,  however,  assigns  to  this  mint  a  coin 
of  type  262  (1128-1131),  reading  *60  .  .  .  SE :  ON :  SA .  D  : 
and,  if  correctly  read,  it  is  the  only  specimen  of  Henry's 
reign  which  seems  to  warrant  the  appropriation,  for  all 
others  previously  given  to  Sandwich  must,  as  we  have 
seen  on  page  390,  be  transferred  to  St.  Edmundsbury. 
But  standing  alone  as  this  reading  does,  it  is  not  very 
satisfactory,  and  it  is  just  possible  that  it,  also,  may  really 
be  the  work  of  60DEIC  of  St.  Edmundsbury.  If,  how- 
ever, it  is  rightly  appropriated  to  Sandwich,  it  is 
significant  that  its  date  (1128-1131)  should  immediately 
follow  a  certain  writ  dated  1127,  by  which  King  Henry 
decided  in  favour  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury,  a  famous 
cause  touching  the  claims  of  the  Abbot  of  St.  Augustine 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      405 

to  certain  customs  infringing  the  liberties  of  the  port  of 
Sandwich,  and  confirmed  the  whole  of  its  rents  and  dues 
to  the  former  community. 

It  is,  therefore,  with  much  hesitation  that  Sandwich 
has  been  inserted  in  the  list  of  Henry's  mints,  and  it  was 
omitted,  as  doubtful,  from  the  list  of  the  mints  under 
type  262,  page  90,  but  as  there  is  a  coin  of  King  Stephen 
reading  ON  :  SANPI,  the  last  which  has  any  claim  to  such 
an  appropriation,  the  town  must,  for  the  present  at  least, 
receive  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

COINS. 

*GO  .  .  .  SE  :  ON  :  SA .  D  :          *fiENRIE  .  .  262 

Watford  find. 

For  coins  previously  assigned  to  this  mint  see  under 
St.  Edmundsbury. 


SOUTHAMPTON  (HAMPSHIRE). 

HAMTUNE,  HEAMTUN,  HANTON,  ANTONA  ;  Domesday,  HANTUNB  ; 
Pipe  Boll,  HAMTONA. 

It  is  to  the  Roman  fortification  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  that  Southampton,  doubtless,  owes  its  origin ; 
but  its  importance  in  Saxon  days  was  due  to  its  position 
as  the  port  of  Winchester,  the  capital  of  England.  As 
such  it  unfortunately  suffered  periodical  attacks  from  the 
Danish  fleets,  and  was  more  than  once  burnt  to  the 
ground.  But  upon  the  accession  of  Canute  its  fortunes 
improved,  for  he  is  said  to  have  been  crowned  here,  and  to 
have  chosen  the  burg  as  an  occasional  residence :  here, 
also,  tradition  assigns  his  famous  moral  upon  the  sea- 
shore. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  3  Q 


406 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

108G.  Domesday  notes. — "  In  the  burg  of  [South]  Hamp- 
ton the  King  has  in  lordship  76  men  who  pay  £7  in 
land  tax,  and  paid  the  same  in  the  time  of  King 
Edward.  Of  these  27  paid  8d.,  two  12d.,  and 
others,  50  in  number,  6d.  each.  Since  King  William 
came  into  England  there  are  65  Norman  and  31 
English  inhabitants,  who,  amongst  them,  render 
£4  Os.  6d.  in  customs."  Various  feudatories  are  men- 
tioned who  hold  their  bouses,  some  fifty  in  all,  free 
"by  concession  of  King  William." 

1128-9.  King  Henry  grants  the  foundation  charter  of  the 
Priory  of  St.  Denys,  Southampton.  The  date  is 
usually  given  as  1184,  but  the  charter  is  addressed  to 
William  Bishop  of  Winchester,  who  died  in  1129,  and 
to  William  de  Pont-de-1'Arche,  the  Sheriff,  who  was 
Sheriff  of  Hampshire  in  1129,  and  is  witnessed  by 
William  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  was  appointed 
in  1123. 

1130.  Pipe  Eoll  notes. — The  membrane,  which,  according 
to  the  schedule,  contained  the  accounts  of  South- 
ampton, is  missing,  but  elsewhere  we  notice  that  the 
King's  Court  had  lately  journeyed  from  Clarendon  to 
this  town. 


As  early  as  in  a  charter  of  King  Ethelwulf,  South- 
ampton is  designated  a  royal  town,  and  in  Athelstan's 
Law  it  was  allowed  two  money ers.  Coins  issued  here  of 
the  latter  King  are  in  existence,  also  of  Eadred  and  of  all 
his  Saxon  successors. 

When  the  Conqueror  "  came  into  England  "  he  found 
that  nearly  every  burg  of  importance  in  the  south- 
western district  had  acquired  the  privilege  of  coining. 
However  convenient  the  system  of  numerous  small  mints, 
scattered  amongst  the  people,  may  have  been  to  the 
public,  it  was  neither  economical  nor  profitable  to  the 
King,  as,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  existing  coins, 
many  of  them  seem  only  to  have  coined  spasmodically,  for 
the  supply,  no  doubt,  exceeded  the  demand.  William's 
policy,  therefore,  from  the  commencement  of  his  reign, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      407 

was  to  absorb  the  smaller  mints  into  the  larger,  and  these 
again  into  the  chief  royal  mints  of  the  district.  Thus  a 
comparison  of  their  moneyers  shows  us,  how  one  after 
another  these  smaller  mints  were  absorbed,  until  at  the 
accession  of  Henry  I,  in  Dorsetshire,  Hampshire,  and 
Wiltshire  alone,  those  of  Bedwin,  Bridport,  Cricklade, 
Malmesbury,  Marlborough  and  Shaftesbury  had  dis- 
appeared, and  those  of  Southampton,  Wareham  and  Wilton 
seem  to  have  become  mere  appendages  to  the  royal  mint  at 
Winchester.  These  in  turn  were  to  fall,  and  in  the  course 
of  centuries  London  gradually  gathered  every  mint  in  the 
country  into  its  meshes  until,  to-day,  it  alone  survives. 

At  the  date  of  Domesday  the  mints  of  Southampton 
and  Wilton  seem  to  have  been  in  the  same  relation  to 
Winchester  as  Southwark  was  to  London,  and,  therefore, 
they  are  not  scheduled  in  the  survey.  The  moneyers  of 
Southampton  were  usually  moneyers  of  Wilton,  and  most 
of  the  moneyers  of  Wilton  can  be  identified  as  officials  of 
the  Winchester  mint.  Again,  in  later  times,  for  instance, 
Sanson,  who  coined  only  at  Southampton  in  the  reign  of 
Stephen,  is  entered  in  the  Liber  Win  ton  for  1148  as 
"  Sanson  monetarius,"  and  as  receiving  and  paying  large 
fees  as  a  burgess  of  Winchester.  In  the  same  authority 
appears,  amongst  its  Winchester  records,  the  curious 
passage,  "  Godwin  Socche  fuit  tempore  Regis  Edtvardi 
magister  monetari[omm~\"  who  was  the  6ODJ7INE  upon 
the  Winchester  coins  of  both  the  Confessor  and  William  I. 
This  is  the  only  record  of  an  official  who  is  described  as 
the  chief  of  the  moneyers ;  and  it  seems  to  fit  in  exactly 
with  the  circumstances  if  we  consider  the  mint  of 
Winchester  as  the  centre  of  a  monetary  system  com- 
prising not  only  its  own  mint,  but,  in  addition,  those  of 
several  neighbouring  royal  towns. 


408  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Its  vicinity  to  the  great  city  of  Winchester  would  in 
any  case  prejudicially  affect  the  profitable  working  of  the 
Southampton  mint,  and,   therefore,  we  can  quite  under- 
stand that  after  it  became  appended  to  that  of  Winchester 
there  was  no  necessity  for  a  constant  coinage.     But  the 
privilege  of   a  mint  still  existed,  and   it    followed  that 
whenever  the  demand  for  currency  arose,  the  privilege 
would   be   put   into   operation.      We    have   seen,    under 
Lincoln,  that  nothing  benefited  the  pi'osperity  of  a  town 
so  much  as  the  advent  of  the  King  and  his  court,  and 
nothing,  therefore,   tended  so  much  to  the  demand  for 
money.     With  this  in  mind,  a  glance  at  the  types  which 
we  have  of  Southampton  in  Henry's  reign,  will  explain 
their  issue.     In  1106   Henry  held  his  court  at  Salisbury 
at    the    Feast    of    Pentecost,   and   thence   he   sailed  to 
Normandy.     Hence  we  may  assume  that  he   embarked 
from    Southampton  or  Portsmouth,  and  so  we  find  type 
252  (1106-1108)  represented  amongst  our  coins  of  this 
mint.     Under  the  year  1123  the  Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us 
that  "  the  King  went  to  Winchester,  where  he  remained 
during  the  festival  of  Easter,  ....  then  he  proceeded  to 
Portsmouth,  and  stayed  there  over  Pentecost  week,  and  as 
soon  as  he  had  a  fair  wind  he  sailed  for  Normandy."  Type 
IV  (1121-1123),  therefore,   records   this  visit   upon  our 
Southampton  coins.     In  1129,  as  we  have  already  seen 
from  the  records  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  King  Henry  and  his 
court  visited  Southampton.    This  was  in  April,  1130,  when 
he  journeyed  "  from  Woodstock  to  Clarendon  and  from 
Clarendon  to  Southampton,"  thus  type  262  (1129-1131) 
is  issued  at  Southampton.     It  does  not  appear  that  the 
King  was  ever  in  the  vicinity  of  the  mint  upon  any  other 
occasion  (except  at  Portsmouth  in  1114,  when  the  coinage 
was  represented  at  Wilton},  and  it  does  not  appear  that 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HEXRY  I.       409 

the  mint  of  Southampton  issued  any  other  types. 
Sudbury,  Tamworth  and  Warwick  seem  to  have  been 
similarly  influenced  as  to  their  coinage. 

The  mint  was  entirely  discontinued  at  some  date  in  the 
following  reign. 

COINS. 
.frDORT  ON  hANTO  .frhENRI  REX         252 

British  Museum.  From  the  Montagu  Sale, 
1896,  £5.  The  first  two  letters  of  the 
moneyer's  name  are  somewhat  indistinct. 

•frPAIEN  :  ON  IiAMTV  .frhENRI   ...          265 

British  Museum.  Probably  from  the  Tyssen 
Sale,  1802.  The  supposed  use  of  tbe  Saxon 
form  of  the  letter  H  in  the  name  of  the  mint 
on  this  coin  was  the  exception  referred  to  on 
page  84,  but  upon  examination  the  letter 
proves  to  be  of  the  ordinary  type,  i.e.  l\. 
Hence  the  solitary  exception  fails  and  the 
disappearance  of  the  form  H  in  the  year 
1106  was  absolute.  As  to  the  moneyer,  see 
page  823.  The  Pain  family  were  settled  in 
Hampshire  and  Dorsetshire  from  Norman 
times  —  hence  Pain's  Bridge  and  Payne's 
Place  ;  and  a  member  of  it  was  summoned 
to  the  7th  Parliament  of  Richard  II. 

*S  .  RUE  ON  I\AM  252 

Simpson  Eostron  Sale,  1892.  Probably  the 
similar  coin  described  in  the  Marsh  am 
catalogue,  1888.  The  moneyer  was  doubt- 
less Serlic,  and  the  name  Sere'  occurs  as  of 
this  district  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll.  This 
moneyer  coined  at  Wilton  in  the  previous 
type. 


410  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


.J.VLF  ON  hAMTV  .frriENC  EEX  A        IV 

British  Museum.  The  moneyer  was,  perhaps, 
the  VLFPINE  who  had  coined  at  Win- 
chester in  type  267. 

The  coin  of  type  255  doubtfully  attributed  to 
this  mint  in  the  Tyssen  Catalogue,  and 
therefore  so  entered  on  page  96,  cannot  be 
traced. 


SOUTHWARK.     See  LONDON  AND  SOUTHWARD 


STAMFORD.     See  PETERBOROUGH. 


SUDBURY  (SUFFOLK). 

SUTHBYRIG,  SUTHBERIE,  SUTHBURH  ;  Domesday,  SUTBERIE  ;  Pipe 
Roll  (Henry  II),  SUTHBERIA. 

"  The  history  of  East  Anglia  is  nearly  blank  in  the 
chronicles  of  England,"  wrote  Sir  Francis  Palgrave,  and 
perhaps  Sudbury  stood  foremost  in  his  mind.  Its  name 
suggests  that  it  was  the  southern  burh  of  its  ancient 
kingdom,  but  we  gather  that  in  later  Saxon  times  its 
importance  had  so  waned  that  at  the  date  of  Domesday, 
although  it  still  retained  a  market  and  a  mint,  its  descrip- 
tion is  rather  that  of  an  agricultural  district  than  that  of 
a  burg.  The  Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us  that  Alfun,  Bishop 
of  East  Anglia,  died  at  Sudbury  in  797,  and,  some  two 
centuries  later,  its  ancient  church  of  St.  Gregory  received 
benefactions  under  the  wills  of  JEtheric  and  .ZElflaed. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — Under  the  heading  of  "  The  land 
of  the  mother  of  Earl  Morcar  which  William  camerarius 
and  Otho  aurifex  administer  in  the  King's  hands,"  is, 
"  In  Tingohv  Hundred  the  mother  of  Earl  Morcar  held 
Sudbury  in  the  time  of  King  Edward,  now  King 
William  has  in  lordship  3  carrucates  of  land  ;  then  there 
was  one  town  [riVZa],  now  there  are  two  and  63  towns- 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      411 

men,  tenants  of  the  Hall-mote,  .  .  and  55  burgesses 
in  lordship."  The  church  of  St.  Gregory  holds  certain 
lands.  The  burg  and  the  market  are  mentioned,  "  and 
here  there  are  moneyers."  "  It  used  to  be  worth  £18, 
by  weight,  and  now  it  is  worth  £28,  by  number." 
1130,  Pipe  Roll  notes.— ^The  first  item  under  this  county  is 
that  William  Sorell  accounts  for  55  marks  of  silver 
and  |  a  mark  of  gold  for  an  amercement  of  false  pennies  ; 
he  pays  £10,  is  remitted  5  marks  of  silver  by  the 
King's  writ,  and  owes  the  balance.  Sudbury  is  not 
mentioned. 

Although  the  name  of  Sudbury  first  appears  upon  our 
coins  in  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  there  is,  from  a  com- 
parison of  the.  names  of  its  moneyers  and  from  their 
number  at  that  period,  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  had 
been  in  operation  in  previous  reigns,  when  most  of  the 
types  bore  the  moneyers'  names  alone.  That  it  was  an 
ancient  town  of  importance  we  know ;  and  the  name  of 
its  hundred — Thingoe — of  which,  at  the  date  of  Domes- 
day, it  comprised  one  quarter  in  value,  suggests  that  it 
may,  like  the  Tynwald  of  Man  and  the  Thingvallyr  of 
Iceland,  have  been,  at  some  time  in  the  remote  past,  the 
Ting  or  moot-place  of  East  Anglia.  This  would  account 
for  the  otherwise  remarkable  fact  that  immediately  its 
name  appears  upon  our  coins  we  find  the  names  of  no 
fewer  than  a  dozen  moneyers  upon  one  type.  Hence,  in 
the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  the  town  must  have  been  of  the 
greatest  prosperity,  and  its  mint  of  an  importance  second 
to  none  in  East  Anglia.  But  suddenly,  during  the  same 
reign,  the  mint  is  stopped,  and  although  it  was  revived 
by  Canute,  and  continued  by  the  Confessor,  it  never  after- 
wards aspired  to  more  than  a  single  money er.  Surely 
this  writes  the  history  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  a  great 
East  Anglian  burg — a  prey  to  the  devastation  of  the 
Danish  raid  of  1010,  when — 


412  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

"  The  Danes  had  possession  of  the  place  of  carnage  ;  and 
there  were  they  horsed  ;  and  afterwards  had  dominion  over 
East  Anglia  and  the  land  they,  for  three  months,  ravaged  and 
burnt ;  and  they  even  went  into  the  wild  fens  and  they  des- 
troyed men  and  cattle  and  burned,  throughout  the  fens :  and 
Thetford  they  burnt  and  Cambridge,  and  after  that  they  went 
southward  again  to  the  Thames.  .  .  .  ever  burning  as  they 
went."  (Saxon  Chron.) 


During  the  reigns  of  Canute,  Edward  the  Confessor, 
and  "William  I  and  II  respectively,  so  far  as  we  know, 
the  mint  only  issued  one  or  perhaps  two  types,  and  there- 
fore no  regular  firma  could  have  been  paid  by  it.  Thus 
the  vague  expression  in  Domesday,  "  here  there  are 
moneyers,"  is  exactly  what  we  should  expect  in  a  case 
where  there  was  a  right  of  coinage  by  ancient  custom, 
but  which  was  only  exercised  at  intermittent  periods, 
and  under  such  special  conditions  and  authority  as  might 
arise  at  any  time,  and  for  which,  therefore,  no  annual 
firma  or  definite  rent  charge  could  be  provided. 

In  the  reign  of  Henry  I  there  seem  to  have  been  four 
occasions  only  when  the  royal  mint  at  the  impoverished 
town  of  Sudbury  might  be  expected  to  have  been  profit- 
ably in  operation.  The  first  would  be  in  1104,  when,  as 
we  are  told  in  the  foundation  charter  of  Thetford  Priory, 
"the  King  made  a  stay  at  Thetford."  The  date  is  proved 
by  the  list  of  its  witnesses,  and  Henry  would  pass  through 
Sudbury  on  his  journey  from  London.  It  may  be  that 
the  King,  in  return  for  the  expense  he  put  upon  the  burg 
for  a  night's  entertainment  of  himself  and  his  court, 
freely  confirmed  the  privilege  of  coining  for  that  year. 
Thus  we  have  type  253  (1104-1106),  commemorative  of 
the  royal  visit  into  East  Anglia.  The  second  occasion 
would  be  when,  as  explained  on  page  62,  every  hide 
throughout  England  had  to  contribute  three  shillings  in 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      413 

money  for  the  dowry  of  the  King's  daughter  Matilda, 
prior  to  her  marriage  with  the  Emperor  of  Germany  in 
January,  1114  ;  at  a  time,  too,  when  Sudbury  would  he 
enriched  by  the  influx  of  >  visitors  at  the  consecration  of 
its  own  Priory  of  St.  Bartholomew  and  of  the  neighbour- 
ing Priory  of  Thetford.  Hence  we  have  type  267  (1112- 
1114)  of  this  mint.  The  third  occasion  was  exactly 
similar,  i.e.,  probably  for  the  dowry  of  Matilda's  second 
marriage  in  1128,  and  so  we  have  type  265  (1126-1128) 
in  evidence.  The  fourth  and  last  occasion  would  be 
during  the  years  1128-1131,  when,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
mint  of  Norwich  was,  for  a  time,  closed,  and  so  Sudbury 
stepped  into  the  breach,  and  for  a  short  period  usurped 
the  privileges  of  the  chief  mint  in  East  Anglia  by  issuing 
type  262  (1128-1131). 

The  name  of  the  moneyer  on  the  two  first  occasions 
when  coinage  was  in  operation  at  Sudbury — that  is — 
upon  types  253  (1104-1106)  and  267  (1112-1114)  is 
Wulfric,  and  as  he  is  probably  the  PVLFEIE  who  coined 
here  for  William  I,  he  was  doubtless  of  advanced  age  in 
1114.  It  was  about  this  date  that  he  gave  the  church  of 
St.  Bartholomew  at  Sudbury  to  the  Monastery  of 
Westminster,  for  the  King's  confirmation  charter  of  the 
gift  seems  to  have  been  granted  in  1117.  Henry's 
charter  is  undated,  but  states  that  it  was  given  at  West- 
minster. Therefore,  as  it  is  witnessed  by  Archbishop 
Ralph,  who  was  appointed  April  26th,  1114,  and  is 
addressed  to  Herbert,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  who  died 
July  22nd,  1119,  its  date  is  closely  defined,  and  when  we 
observe,  by  inference,  that  the  Queen,  who  died  May  ]  st, 
1118,  was  then  living,  and  that  Henry  granted  a  charter 
to  Hulme  Abbey,  Norfolk,  also  at  Westminster,  but  dated 
1117,  which  is  witnessed  by  Archbishop  Ralph  and 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  3  H 


414  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Ralph  the  Chancellor  (another  witness  common  to  both 
deeds),  that  year  may  be  accepted  as  the  true  date  of  the 
Sudbury  charter ;  although  the  King's  presence  in 
England  at  that  period  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
historically  noticed. 

The  following  are  its  terms  : — 

"  Henricus  Rex  Anglise,  Herberto  Episcopo  Norwic.  et  Hay- 
mom  Dapifero,  et  Burgensibus  de  Suthbery,  omnibusque  minis- 
tris  suis  et  fidelibus,  Francis  et  Anglis  de  Suthfolk  salutem. 
Sciatis  me  concessisee  Deo,  et  Sancto  Petro,  et  Monasterio 
Westmon.  pro  redemptione  animse  mese  Ecclesiam  Sancti  Bar- 
tholomei  de  Suthberia  quam  WULFEICUS  monetarius  meus  ad 
usum  monacborum  inibi  servientium  eis  dederat  pro  fraternitate 
et  monachatu  suo  quern  ibidem  susceperet,"  &c.  (Monasticon.) 

The  charter  is  interesting,  in  that  it  not  only  describes 
Wulfric  as  monetarius  meus,  thus  showing  him  to  have 
been  a  royal  moneyer  ;  but  also  proves  that,  as  such,  he 
was  of  sufficient  wealth  and  position  as  to  be  the  founder, 
or  at  least  the  donor,  of  the  Priory. 

The  mint  seems  to  have  been  entirely  discontinued 
after  the  reign  of  Stephen. 

COINS. 
^[OJSBERN  [ON]  SVDBE  265 

Allen  Sale,  1898.  A  Richard  FitzOsberne 
held  a  fief  in  Suffolk  from  Earl  Bigod  in 
1165.  (Norman  People.) 

•frOS  .  .  .  .    ON  :  SVTB  :  ^.IiENRIEVS  EE         262 

L.  A.  Lawrence.     20  grs. 

•fOSBEBN  ON   SVTB  262 

Sales,  April,  1889;  June,  1901. 


A    NUMISMATIC   H [STORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY   I.      415 
*PVLFEIE  ON  SVB  *HENRI  REX  253 

E.  K.  Burstal ;  17J  grs.     As  to  this  moneyer, 
see  before. 

/ 
*PVLFRIE  :  ON  :  SVTB  *hENRIE  REX        267 

British  Museum. 


TAMWORTH  (STAFFORDSHIRE). 

TAMWEORTHIGE,  TAMWURDIN,  TAMESWRDA,  TOMEWORTHIE,  To- 
MANWORTHIG,  CHAUREWERD  ;  Domesday,  TAMEWORDE  ;  Pipe 
Roll,  TAMEWORDA. 

The  earliest  reference  to  Tamworth  would  seem  to  be 
that  in  the  charters  of  Offa,  King  of  Mercia,  and  as  he 
and  his  successors  granted  several  "in  celebre  vico  on 
Tomeworthie,"  or  "  sedens  in  regali  palatio  in  Tamo- 
worthige"  it  was  doubtless  the  northern  stronghold  of  the 
Kings  of  Mercia.  Towards  the  end  of  the  ninth  century 
the  town  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Danes,  but  in  913,  "  by 
the  help  of  God,  Ethelfreda,  Lady  of  the  Mercians,  went 
with  all  the  Mercians  to  Tamworth,  and  there  built  the 
burh  early  in  the  summer."  Here  she  died,  and  here  in 
925,  Sihtric,  King  of  Northumbria,  paid  homage  to 
Athelstan  ;  but  in  943  Anlaf  the  Dane  stormed  Tamworth 
with  great  carnage,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  I  the  town  had  even  yet  recovered  from 
this  devastation,  for  the  Pipe  Roll  gives  us  but  a  gloomy 
record  of  its  poverty. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — The  Honour  of  Tamworth,  like 
that  of  Hastings,  is  omitted  from  the  Survey,  but 
under  Wigeton,  Draitone  and  Coleshelle  twenty-two 
burgesses  of  Tamworth  are  mentioned  as  appertaining 
to  those  Manors. 


416  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1180.  Pipe  Eoll  notes.— Under  Staffordshire  the  Sheriff 
of  the  county  accounts  for  25s.  for  the  previous  year's 
auxilium  of  the  burg,  but  it  is  remitted  by  the  King's 
writ  to  the  burgesses,  "because  of  their  poverty," 
and  similarly  for  25s.  for  the  current  year,  but  with- 
out any  such  remission. 

Under  Warwickshire  the  Sheriff  of  the  county  similarly 
accounts  for  37s.  and  2d.  for  the  previous  year's 
auxilium,  and  owes  80s.  for  the  current  year. 

It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  coins  of  the  early  Kings 
of  Mercia  were  struck  at  Tamworth,  when  for  a  time  it 
would  appear  to  have  been  the  seat  of  government ;  and, 
later,  its  name  occurs  upon  those  of  Edgar,  Edward  the 
Martyr,  Ethelred  II,  Canute,  Harold  I,  and  Edward  the 
Confessor.  But  the  mint  seems  to  have  been  gradually  de- 
clining in  importance  towards  the  close  of  the  Saxon  epoch. 

The  omission  from  Domesday  of  the  survey  of  Tam- 
worth proves,  as  at  Hastings,  that  the  King  had  no  interest 
within  it,  and  a  charter  of  the  Empress  Matilda  to 
William  de  Beauchamp  shows  that  the  Honour  had  been 
granted,  probably  immediately  after  the  Conquest,  to 
Robert  "  Dispensator/'  for  she  says  : — 

"  Et  prseter  hoc  dedi  ei  et  reddidi  castellum  et  honorem  de 
Tamword  ad  tenendum  ita  bene  et  in  pace  et  quiete  et  plenarie 
et  honorifice  et  libere  sicut  unquam  melius  et  quietius  et  ple- 
narius  et  honorificentius  et  liberius  Kobertus  Dispensator  frater 
Ursonis  de  Abbetot  ipsum  castellum  et  honorem  tenuerit." 
(Geof.  de  Hand.,  314.) 

The  absolute  grant  of  Tamworth  to  Robert  Dispensator 
would  carry  with  it  the  royal  mint,  as  we  find  evidenced 
upon  its  coins  by  the  usual  grantee's  intermittent  coinage 
during  the  reigns  of  the  two  Williams.  Robert  died, 
without  issue,  in  the  reign  of  William  II,  and  Tain- 
worth  would  thus  revert  to  the  King.  We  now  ap- 
proach a  very  involved  problem  of  genealogy ;  Urso 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.       417 

d'Abetot,  the  brother,  was  the  heir  general,  but  there 
seems  no  evidence  that  either  Rufus  or  Henry  I  ever 
granted  the  Honour  to  him.  It  is  true  that  Matilda,  in 
1141,  by  the  above  charter,  ^granted  Tamworth  to  William 
de  Beauchamp  as  the  grandson  of  TJrso  d'Abetot,  but  at 
that  time  it  was  in  dispute  between  the  Marmion  and 
Beauchamp  families,  and  she  naturally  supported  the 
claims  of  her  adherent. 

There  was  no  reason,  save  favour,  why  either  Rufus  or 
Henry  I  should  grant  the  Honour  of  Tamworth  to  a 
collateral,  for  there  was  no  descent  from  the  original 
grantee ;  indeed,  the  policy  of  the  latter  King  was  to 
curtail,  rather  than  to  extend,  individual  power.  Thus, 
as  we  have  seen  under  similar  circumstances,  he  withheld 
both  Lincoln  and  Carlisle  from  the  earldom  of  Chester,  and 
he  retained  Hereford,  Shrewsbury,  Chichester,  Pevensey, 
and  numerous  other  places,  which  had  originally  been 
royal  towns,  when  from  one  cause  or  another  they  fell 
into  his  hands. 

Therefore,  instead  of  adding  the  Honour  of  Tamworth 
to  the  already  extensive  possessions  of  Urso  d'Abetot, 

•/  •*• 

Constable  of  "Worcester,  Henry  restored  it  to  its  old  posi- 
tion as  a  *royal  burg,  and  appointed  Roger  Marmion  as 
Constable  of  the  Castle.  That  in  Henry's  reign  neither 
he  nor  his  son  Robert  Marmion  had  as  yet  received  a 
grant  of  the  Honour  itself  seems  clear  from  Henry's 
charter  to  the  latter,  conferring  upon  him  free  warren  in 
Warwickshire,  "  and  especially  at  Tamworth  as  his  father 
had  it  [free  warren],"  which  would  have  been  unnecessary 
had  the  Honour  been  his.  Moreover,  Roger  had  died  shortly 
before  1130,  for  the  Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  Robert  Mar- 
mion accounted  for  £176  13s.  4d.  "  as  relief  for  the  lands 
of  his  father,"  and  as  the  entry  and  one  or  two  others 


418  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

concerning  him  are  all  under  Lincolnshire,  it  is  quite 
clear  that  his  hereditary  estates  were  in  that  county. 

Throughout  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  therefore,  Taraworth 
remained  in  the  King's  possession,  and  its  ancient  right 
of  coinage  was  revived.  The  mint  would  be  leased  with 
the  burg  to  its  burgesses  in  their  firma,  and  when  it  was 
not  in  operation  its  share  of  such  firma  would  be  returned 
to  the  burgesses.  Its  condition  was,  thus,  similar  to  Dor- 
chester, Colchester,  and  other  mints  as  so  often  explained. 
But  there  seem  to  be  only  three  types  of  the  reign  which 
can  be  appropriated  to  this  mint,  and  the  appropriation  of 
one  of  them  is  not  quite  beyond  question.  Like  Sudbury, 
Tamworth's  glory  had  in  Norman  times  departed,  and, 
as  we  shall  presently  see,  poverty  had  come  in  at  its  doors. 
It  should  be  noticed  that  of  these  types  the  first,  namely, 
254  (1102-1104),  perhaps  immediately  followed  the  lease 
of  the  mint  to  the  burgesses.  The  second  type,  265 
(1126-1128),  was  that  issued  throughout  the  country 
upon  the  general  revival  of  the  coinage  consequent  upon 
the  Great  Inquisition  of  themoneyers  at  Christmas,  1125. 
The  third  type,  262  (1128-1131),  was  issued  immediately 
before  or  exactly  at  the  date  of  the  King's  visit  to 
Northampton  in  1131,  when  the  King's  advftnt  would 
entail  the  journeying  through  the  town  of  many  barons 
to  attend  his  court,  and,  if  at  no  other  time,  coinage  at 
Tamworth  would  then  be  profitable. 

This  story  of  the  Tamworth  mint  is  substantiated  by 
the  1130  Pipe  Roll.  The  instances  of  Dorchester,  Col- 
chester, Norwich,  Oxford,  Shaftesbury,  Thetford,  Wal- 
lingford,  &c.,  prove  that  the  return  of  a  small  portion  of 
the  auxilium  to  the  burgesses  meant  that  the  mint  was,  or 
some  of  its  moneyers  were,  dormant  at  that  date.  The 
firma  was  collected  by  the  Sheriff,  and  included  by  him  in 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY   I.      419 

the  county  returns,  therefore,  if  for  any  reason  a  burg  was 
entitled  to  the  return  of  some  portion  of  it,  the  obviously 
better  plan  was  to  credit  it  out  of  the  auxilium,  rather 
than  to  deduct  it  from  fhejirma,  which  was  not  separately 
entered  in  the  accounts.  In  other  words  the  allowance  was 
a  customary  grant  by  the  King's  favour,  and  not  a  mere 
deduction  (see  under  Thetford).  Except,  therefore,  in  the 
particular  years  of  1102-1103,  1126  and  1130-1131,  there 
was  probably  no  coinage  at  Tamworth  "  because  of  its 
poverty  "  ;  and  so  year  by  year,  with  those  three  excep- 
tions only,  25s.  would  be  returned  to  the  burgesses  "  by 
the  King's  writ  in  pardon."  It  happens  that  in  the  1130 
Pipe  Roll  Tamworth  was  in  arrear  with  the  payment  of 
its  auxilium,  and  so  we  have  the  accounts  for  two  years. 
In  1128-1129  the  mint  was  not  in  operation,  and  so  the 
25s.,  which  was  about  the  usual  contribution  to  ihefirma 
by  a  mint  reduced  to  one  moneyer,  was  returned  "  by  the 
King's  writ  in  pardon  to  the  Burgesses  because  of  their 
poverty."  But  in  1129-1130  the  mint  was  issuing  type 
262,  and  so  the  auxilium  is  paid,  in  full,  "  into  the 
Treasury  and  the  Sheriff  is  quit."  It  will  be  noticed  that 
there  is  no  grant  in  either  year  out  of  the  auxilium  for 
that  portion  of  the  town  which  was  in  Warwickshire, 
hence  we  incidentally  learn  that  the  mint  was  on  the 
Staffordshire  side  of  the  river  ;  but  that  is  only  to  be  ex- 
pected, for  the  main  road  to  Tamworth  was  in  that  county, 
and  so,  following  the  rule  in  the  instance  of  the  City  of 
London,  where  the  principal  gate  was  there  would  be  the 
mint. 

Coinage  at  Tamworth  ceased,  for  ever,  with  the  close  of 
type  262  in  1131,  except  for  a  curious  and  temporary 
revival  during  the  following  reign.  The  moneyer  in  1131 
was  BfRIErijMAEE,  and  we  find  the  name  BRIEhMAR 


420  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

upon  the  succeeding  type  at  London.  His  predecessor 
was  LEFPINE,  whose  name  also  appears  on  the  London 
coins  immediately  after  it  disappears  from  Tamworth.  As 
in  both  of  these  cases  the  moneyer's  name  is  absent  from 
the  London  coins  of  the  types  then  being  issued  at  Tam- 
worth, we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  King  Henry 
supplied  his  mint,  which  although  farmed  to  the  burgesses 
of  Tamworth  still  retained  its  royal  character,  from  the 
metropolitan  mint. 

COINS. 
•J.IELDKED  ON  TPH  *HENEI  EEI  254 

Spick  and  Son.  PI.  VIII.  No.  2.  IELDEED 
is,  of  course,  JEldred,  and  probably  a  form 
of  Alfred,  which  name  occurs  on  a  Tamworth 
coin  of  the  following  reign. 

•frB[EIEfi]MAEE  ON  TAME  262 

Spink  and  Son.  From  the  Peace  Sale,  1894. 
As  to  the  moneyer,  see  before. 

•fc LEFPINE  :  ON  :  TAMEPV       .frfiENEIEVS  E       265 

Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  As 
to  the  moneyer,  see  before. 


THETFORD  (NORFOLK). 

THEODFORD,    THEOTFORD,    TEDFORDIA  ;    Domesday,    TETFORD  ; 
Pipe  Eoll,  TIETFORD. 

"  The  Roman  remains  as  yet  discovered  at  Thetford  are 
neither  numerous  nor  important,  though  there  is  little 
doubt  as  to  the  identification  of  the  site  of  the  Roman 
town,"  says  Mr.  Dukinfield-Astley  in  a  recent  paper  to 
the  Brit.  Arch.  Ass.  Although  it  is  said  to  have  been 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      421 

once  the  capital  of  East  Anglia,  it  does  not  enter  the 
pages  of  the  Saxon  Chronicle  until  tlje  year  870,  when  the 
Danes  "took  up  their  winter  quarters  at  Thetford,  and 
the  same  winter  King  Edmund  fought  against  them,  but 
the  Danes  got  the  victory  and  slew  the  King  and  subdued 
all  the  land."  From  this  occupation  probably  dates  the 
building  of  the  great  mound,  now  known  as  Castle  Hill, 
as  Mr.  Astley  demonstrates  by  a  comparison  with  the 
similar  mound  at  Norwich,  which  is  constructed  over  the 
Roman  Road  and  which  is,  at  least,  therefore  post-Roman. 
So  Danish  did  the  population  become  in  succeeding  years, 
that  King  Edred,  in  952,  "  commanded  great  slaughter 
to  be  made  in  the  town  of  Thetford,"  but  in  1004  it  was 
nevertheless  burnt  by  Sweyn  the  Dane,  and  it  again 
similarly  suffered  in  1010.  At  the  close  of  the  Saxon  era, 
however,  its  recovery  had  been  so  remarkable  that  it  was 
one  of  the  largest  towns  in  England. 

1078.  About  this  time  Thetford  was  chosen  as  the  See  of 
East  Anglia. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  burg  there  were  formerly, 
in  the  time  of  King  Edward,  948  burgesses  from  whom 
the  King  had  all  customs.  Now  there  are  720  burgesses 
and  224  houses  empty.  The  whole  of  the  burg  was  worth 
in  the  time  of  King  Edward  £20,  by  number,  and  for 
the  office  of  the  Ealdorman  [consul]  £10,  by  number. 
Now  it  pays  to  the  King  £50,  by  weight,  and  to  the 
Earl  £20,  blanched,  and  £6,  by  number.  It  also  now 
pays  to  the  King  £40  for  the  mint. 

1094.     The  See  of  East  Anglia  is  translated  to  Norwich. 

1104.  December. — Roger  Bigod  founds  Thetford  Priory, 
and  in  the  charter  we  are  incidentally  told  that  King 
Henry  was  then  visiting  the  town. 

1107.  Roger  Bigod  is  buried  in  the  Priory  (Orderic.)  As 
to  this  family  see  under  Ipswich. 

1119.  Apparent  date  of  William  Bigod's  confirmation  charter 
of  the  Priory. 

1130.     Pipe  Roll  notes.— The  Sheriff  accounts  for  £1C 

the  auxilium  of  the  burg  of  Thetford,  but  60s.  is  returned 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  «  I 


422  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

to  the  Burgesses  by  the  King's  writ.  Godwine  de 
Wichingeham  (Whitlingham)  accounts  for  40s.  on  a 
plea  of  Richard  Basset  at  Thetford.  The  monks  of 
Thetford  receive  40s.  from  the  county  returns.  Under 
Suffolk,  Fulchard,  Provost  of  Thetford,  owes  £85  2s.  8d. 
on  a  plea  of  Geoffrey  de  Clinton. 

Our  earliest  coins  upon  which  the  name  of  Thetford 
appears  commence  with  the  reign  of  Edgar,  and  after  an 
uninterrupted  sequence,  save  here  and  there  a  missing 
type,  terminate  during  the  first  issue  ,of  Henry  II. 

Thetford  was  always  a  royal  mint,  and  the  passage  in 
Domesday  tells  us  that  although  the  Earl  had  the  tertius 
denarius  from  the  firma  of  the  burg,  the  King  alone  had 
that  of  the  mint.  But  what  is  more  important  is  the 
wording.  "  It  [the  burg]  now  pays  to  the  King  £40  for 
the  mint."  This  means  that  the  burgesses  farmed  the  mint 
and  paid  a  separate  firma  for  it,  and  consequently  it  was 
unnecessary  to  set  out  the  names  of  Lagemen  or  tenants 
in  capite  responsible  for  its  rent,  as  at  Lincoln  and  Oxford  ; 
for  the  whole  of  the  burgesses  were  its  lessees.  No  such 
names  therefore  are  given  us  at  Thetford. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  the  burg  should  have 
been  so  heavily  assessed  for  its  mint,  as,  although  the  latter 
was  very  prolific  in  the  early  years  of  its  existence,  there 
were,  after  allowing  for  changes  during  the  currency  of  a 
type,  certainly  not  more  than  four  moneyers  here  at  the 
date  of  Domesday.  Yet  to  recoup  the  burgesses  for  their 
rent  alone,  if  only  the  legitimate  profit  of  sixteen  pence 
halfpenny  was  made  upon  every  240  pence  coined  (see 
page  11),  necessitated  the  enormous  output  for  those  days 
of  139,636  pennies  per  annum.  It  is  true  that  the  more 
prolific  mint  of  Lincoln  paid  £75,  but  no  such  figures  as 
these  are  ever  brought  forward  in  the  days  when  the 
Pipe  Rolls  furnish  us  with  current  records,  and  it  is 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      423 

justifiable  to  suggest  boldly  that  they  do  not  represent 
the  permanent  firma  of  the  mint,  but  certain  annual 
instalments,  which  were  being  paid  by  the  burgesses  for  the 
purchase  of  the  lease  of  the  mint  from  the  King ;  just  as 
in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll  the  citizens  of  London  paid  100 
marks  that  they  might  elect  their  own  sheriff — or,  in 
other  words,  for  their  charter  to  hold  their  city  at  a  firma 
of  £300.  (See  page  284.) 

If  Thetford  was  to  pay  £40  a  year,  why  should  the 
burgesses  in  the  1157  Roll  be  allowed  an  abatement  from 
their  firma  of  only  40  shillings,  because  the  mint  had 
been  deprived  of  two  of  its  four  moneyers,  and  after- 
wards £4  per  year  because  the  four  moneyers  were  no 
longer  in  being  ?  From  these  inferences  it  is  manifest 
that  the  permanent  firma  of  the  mint  was  £4.  Moreover, 
if  we  take  Domesday  as  a  whole,  and,  when  a  fine  is 
payable  on  a  change  of  type,  average  it  over  the  two  or 
three  years  of  the  currency  of  a  type,  we  find  that  in 
most  cases  the  firma  of  a  mint  was  equal  to  about  £1 
per  year  from  each  moneyer.  In  the  other  cases, 
therefore,  where  a  large  sum  is  mentioned,  it  is  now 
suggested  that  the  burgesses  or  grantees  of  the  mint 
were  paying  a  fine  for  their  charter  of  the  privilege. 

Whatever  was  the  firma  of  the  mint  at  the  date  of 
Domesday,  it  was  only  £4  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  as,  it 
is  submitted,  the  following  evidence  will  prove.  The 
Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer  explains  that  where  there  was  a 
nominal  fixed  payment  of  which  the  whole  or  part  had 
been  remitted,  the  Sheriff  entered  the  full  amount  in  his 
accounts,  but  on  production  of  the  King's  writ  the  balance 
was  accepted,  and  a  note  of  the  writ  entered  for  the  re- 
mainder. Such  a  writ  might  be  either  general  or  special, 
and  if  general  it  was  produced  year  after  year  by  the 


424  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

grantee  whenever  required ;  in  fact  it  operated  as  a 
charter.  We  have  seen  that  the  firma  of  the  Thetford 
mint  was,  according  to  Domesday,  tacked  on  to  the  firma 
of  the  burg,  and  both  were  paid  by  the  citizens ;  we  know 
that  the  mint  ceased  to  exist — probably  because  the  privi- 
lege was  withdrawn  by  the  King — at  some  time  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  II,  and  we  have  numismatic  evidence 
that  the  original  number  of  moneyers  was  four.  Hence, 
after  the  mint  was  discontinued,  when  the  burgesses 
paid  their  rents  they  would  deduct  the  share  of  the 
mint  by  production  of  the  King's  writ ;  so  we  have 
only  to  refer  to  the  later  Pipe  Rolls  to  find  what  that 
share  was.  We  will  take  the  third  year  of  King  John, 
because  it  happens  to  tell  us  what  the  original  number  of 
moneyers  was,  viz.,  Et  in  defectu  IIII  Monetariorum  de 
Tetford  £4,  which  means  that,  as  the  four  moneyers  of 
Thetford  were  no  longer  there,  the  burgesses  produced 
their  writ  and  were  allowed  a  remittance  of  £4  from  their 
firma  as  representing  the  rent  of  the  old  mint.  Turning 
to  a  Roll  nearer  to  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  namely,  for  the 
fourth  year  of  Henry  II,  the  similar  entry,  but  for  only 
half  the  amount,  is,  "M  in  defectu  Monetariorum  de 
Tetford  40s./'  which  shows  that  only  two  of  the  four 
moneyers  were  then  in  office,  and  that  as  two  had  been 
withdrawn,  half  of  the  firma  of  the  mint  was  remitted. 
This  exactly  tallies  with  the  evidence  of  our  coins,  for 
there  are  altogether  only  three  names  on  the  Thetford 
coins  of  the  entire  reign,  and  therefore,  after  allowing  for 
a  change,  only  two  at  any  one  time.  This  is  again  proved 
by  the  fact  that  the  Roll  of  his  fourteenth  year  tells  us 
that  there  were  only  two  moneyers  here  then,  namely, 
William  FitzDerewater  and  William  de  Wicklevvood 
(Norfolk)— the  "  WILLELM  "  on  the  coins. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      425 

Bringing  all  these  arguments  to  bear  upon  the  reign  of 
Henry  I,  we  must  infer  that  the  mint  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  burgesses,  that  its  firma,  as  paid  by  them,  was 
£4,  and  that  the  nominal  number  of  money ers  was  four. 
As  a  royal  mint  worked  by  the  burgesses  we  should 
therefore  expect  to  find  a  complete,  or  nearly  complete, 
series  of  types  upon  its  coins,  and  this  is  borne  out  by 
the  fact  that  of  the  fifteen  types  of  Henry's  reign 
we  have,  to-day,  no  fewer  than  twelve  in  evidence  of 
the  Thetford  mint.  But,  after  allowing  in  one  or  two 
instances  for  a  change  of  moneyer  during  the  currency 
of  a  type,  it  is  quite  clear  that  instead  of  there  being 
four  moneyers  in  office,  there  was  only  one  during  the 
whole  of  the  reign.  This  is  proved  by  a  passage  in  the 
1130  Pipe  Roll,  and,  conversely,  the  fact  explains  the 
passage.  Unfortunately,  as  so  often  remarked,  we  have 
only  one  Roll  preserved  of  the  reign,  or  no  doubt  a 
similar  entry  would  appear  in  all.  It  is,  "The  same 
Sheriff  returned  an  account  of  [£10  for]  the  auxilium  of 
Thetford  :  [he  paid]  into  the  Treasury  £7  :  and  [allowed] 
in  pardon  by  the  King's  writ  to  the  Burgesses  of  Thet- 
ford 60  shillings ;  and  they  are  quit." 

This,  of  course,  means  that  instead  of  paying  £4  for 
their  mint,  the  burgesses  had  produced  the  King's  writ 
by  which  the  number  of  moneyers  had  been  reduced  from 
four  to  one,  at'a  time,  and  so  a  proportionate  allowance  was 
made  in  the  firma  of  the  mint.  Hence  the  Sheriff  remitted 
£3  as  representing  the  three  moneyers  in  abeyance,  and  the 
burgesses,  in  their  auxilium,  paid  £1  for  the  still  remain- 
ing moneyer  in  office.  That  the  passage  refers  to  the 
firma  of  the  mint  is  proved  by  similar  entries  under 
Dorchester,  Colchester,  Norwich,  Oxford,  Shaftesbury, 
Tamworth,  Thetford,  Wallingford,  etc.,  and  the  reduction 


426  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

in  the  number  of  money  ers  probably  occurred  at  the  date 
of  the  transfer  of  the  See  of  East  Anglia  from  Thetford 
to  Norwich  in  1094. 

According  to  Ruding,  "in  the  reign  of  William  I, 
Turstan  or  Thurstan,  of  Thetford,  and  Half,  his  sou,  were 
mint  masters  (moneyers)  here."  He  quotes  "  The  History 
of  Norfolk,"  i.  469,  as  his  authority,  which,  after  describing 
a  coin  of  William  I  as  reading  "  OD  .  ON  DEODFOVED," 
continues  :  "At  this  time  Turstan,  or  Thurstan  of  Thet- 
ford, and  Half,  his  son,  were  mint  masters  here."  The 
latter  statement  is  evidently  from  a  record,  because  the 
coins  would  not  give  the  relationship  of  Ralf  to  Thurstan, 
but  as  there  are,  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  no  coins 
of  either  of  the  Williams  bearing  the  name  of  OD  . 
THVESTAN  or  EALF,  it  is  probable  that  a  line,  refer- 
ring to  the  coins  of  Henry  I,  Stephen,  and  Henry  II,  has 
been  omitted  ;  for  ODE  appears  on  the  Thetford  coins  of 
Henry  I  and  Stephen,  EAWLF  on  those  of  Stephen,  and 
TVESTAN  on  those  of  Henry  II.  Perhaps  the  missing 
record  was  not  quite  clear  as  to  whether  Thurstan  or  Half 
was  the  son,  describing  them,  e.g.,  as  "  father  and  son," 
for  it  would  seem  as  if  their  relationship  ought  to  be 
reversed. 

COINS. 

^ABEEEAND  :  ON  :  TE  »£liENEI  EEX         26« 


Fitz-William  Museum,  Cambridge.  PI.  IV., 
No.  6.  From  a  cast  supplied  by  Mr.  F. 
Jenkinson.  Obv.  —  An  additional  star  at  the 
end  of  the  legend.  Eev.  —  The  letter  T  is 
similar  to  that  on  LIFNOD's  coin  below. 


0[N  :  T]E  ^IiENB  ....          252 

Lincoln  and  Son. 

*AEVS    .  .    TETFOE  ^I\ENEI  EE  252 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       427 

British  Museum.  Engraved,  Hawkins,  252. 
The  Anglicised  form  AEE  appears  upon  St. 
Edmundsbury  coins  in  the  following  reign. 

»|<ALRA  .  .    ON    .  ETF  :  >J«Ii BE    262 

Watford  find.  The  moneyer's  name  is  pro- 
bably ALEAND,  and  a  later  form  of 
ABEBRAND. 


ON  DTI  *HENRI  BIEX       251 

Sale,  July,  1890.  The  moneyer's  name  is 
queried,  and  no  doubt  represents  ASEHETIE 
for  Anchitel. 


^ASEhETFE   .N:TET:    *I\ENRIEVS  :  REX  AN   IV 

British  Museum.  PI.  V.,  No.  8.  Engraved, 
Euding,  Sup.  I.,  6.  From  Sir  Robert 
Cotton's  collection. 


^ASEI\ETIE  ON  TETFO  ^hENRIEVS  B  :     265 

British  Museum.  19  grs.  Engraved  Num. 
Chron.,  2nd  ser.  xx.,  11,  18.  From  the  Mon- 
tagu, 1897  ;  Whitbourn,  1869,  £2  Is.  Od.  ; 
and  Sharp,  1883,  £6  17s.  6d.,  Sales.  But 
erroneously  read  STANFO,  and  the  mark 
illustrated  Num.  Chron.  N.S.  xx.  11,  19,  was 
probably  accidental. 

»J<ASEIiETIE    .  .    TftTFO  265 

Richardson-Currer  Sale,  1862. 


ON  DTF  ^HENRI  RI  254 

J.  Verity.  From  the  March,  1866,  and  Boyne, 
1896,  Sales.  The  A  in  the  moneyer's  name 
is  composed  of  two  uprights,  as  described 
on  page  43.  It  is  probably  a  contraction 
for  Brand  or  possibly  Brantoth  ;  see  later. 


428  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


ON  DET  »J<HENKI  BEX         254 

Christmas  Sale,  1864.     The  moneyer's  name 
is  probably  an  error  for  BRAND. 


^BRHTOD  ON  DTF  ^HENRI  R  254 

Capt.  R.  J.  H.  Douglas.     PI.  II..  No.  7.     The 

moneyer's  name  is  for  Brantoth,  or  possibly 
Brihtnoth . 


>^ENSELRAM  ON  T  tfrhE  .  RIE  .  .    R  .  .      264 

Sir  John  Evans.  An  Ingleran  de  Abern  re- 
ceived 7s.  6d.  from  the  County  returns  of 
Suffolk  in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll,  and  an 
Engelram  witnessed  the  foundation  charter 
of  Horton  Priory. 


^GODPINE  ON  DEF  *HE  .  RI  REX        254 

Sir  John  Evans.  This  is  probably  the  Godwine 
who  coined  here  in  the  previous  reigns,  and 
was  possibly  father  of  the  next. 


^GODPINE  :  ON  T  [ET]FO         *I\ENRIE  REX      267 
Sir  John  Evans.     PI.  IV.,  No.  2. 

.  .  .  E  :  ON  :  TETFO         *I\ENRIEVS  R  :     262 

British  Museum.  This  is  probably  the  God- 
wine  de  Wichingeham  who,  in  the  1180 
Pipe  Roll,  is  fined  40s.  at  Thetford  on  a  plea 
of  Richard  Basset  (the  King's  Justiciary), 
and  it  accounts  for  his  name  not  appearing 
on  any  later  type. 


...    ON    TETFO  262 

Fewkes  Sale,  1887. 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      429 

*LIFN£D  ON  DE£T  *HENEI  EEX        253 

Sir  John  Evans.  PI.  II.,  No.  12.  These  old- 
fashioned  Saxon  letters  Q  and  T  only  occur 
on  one  or  two  coins  of  this  reign.  See 
ABEEEAND,  above. 


DEF  :  ^IiENEIE  EEX      267 


Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow  University.  En- 
graved, Ending,  Sup.  II.,  1,  6.  The  letters 
on  the  reverse  are,  however,  very  indistinct ; 
but  a  moneyer,  NEEOLL,  coined  here  in  the 
previous  reign. 

ON  :  TETF  .  E  >frJ\  .  NB .  E  :          255 

J.  Verity.  From  the  Pearce  Sale,  1898.  As 
to  this  moneyer,  see  before.  He  was  pro- 
bably the  ODE  who  coined  at  St.  Edmunds- 
bury  in  the  previous  type.  Under  Suffolk, 
in  the  1130  Pipe  Roll,  an  Odo  fitz  Odo  de 
Dommartino  pays  succession  fees  for  his 
father's  property. 


»I<OD[E  :  ON  :  TETF]0[E]D          ^IxEN  ...  255 

L.  -"        L       J 

Watford  find. 

.  .  .  .    ON  :  TE  .  F  .  .  ...  NEIE  :  255 

A.  H.  Sadd. 

^<STAN  .  .    ON  :  T  .  »!<I\EN  .  .    .  EX       256 

British  Museum.  PI.  III.,  No.  6.  Engraved, 
Hawkins,  256.  The  moneyer's  name  was, 
perhaps,  STANEftE. 

^STANCftE  :  ON  :  ....  256 

Watford  find.     2  specimens. 

Specimens.— Wakeford,  1879;   Kirby,  1888;  Lord 

Grantley,  1894,  Sales      .        .         -  251 

Webb,  1898,  Sale       .  •  266 

The  coin  described  on  page  303  as  ONTEFT  ONN 
LVN  of  type  267  may,  possibly,  be  a  Thetford  com. 

TOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


430  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

WALLINGFORD  (BERKSHIRE). 

WELINGEFORD,     WEALINGAFORD  ;     Domesday,     WALINGEFORD  ; 
Pipe  Roll,  WABENGEFORD. 

The  name  of  Wallingford  is,  perhaps,  derived  from  the 
British  Guallen-ford,  and  as  such  has  been  handed  down 
to  us,  iu  almost  unbroken  sound,  as  descriptive  of  the  ford 
near  the  ancient  Roman  camp.  It  is  believed  to  have 
been  an  early  fortress  of  the  Saxons,  and  in  their  time  it 
suffered  severely  at  the  hands  of  the  Danes.  Upon  one 
occasion,  in  1006,  the  Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us,  "  Then 
went  they  to  Wallingford,  which  they  burned  entirely 
.  .  .  and  carried  their  booty  to  the  sea,  for  there  might 
the  men  of  Winchester  see  an  army  daring  and  fearless 
as  they  went  by  their  gates  towards  the  coast,  and 
brought  themselves  food  and  treasure  over  fifty  miles 
from  the  sea."  But  the  burg  rose  from  its  ashes,  and  at 
the  time  of  the  Conquest  was  a  flourishing  and  populous 
town  under  the  Saxon  Wigod,  Thane  of  Wallingford. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  burg  of  Wallingford 
King  Edward  had  8  virgates  of  land  and  276  houses 
paying  £11  as  rent  service.  The  inhabitants  also 
rendered  service  of  transit,  by  horse  or  by  water, 
within  a  prescribed  radius,  and  various  military 
customs.  Now,  the  customs  in  the  burg  are  the 
same  as  formerly,  but  tbere  are  13  fewer  houses 
[paying  service  to  the  King],  for  8  had  been  de- 
stroyed for  the  castle,  "  the  moneyer  has  one  free 
so  long  as  he  makes  the  money,"  and  the  remainder 
are  exempt  for  reasons  given.  From  these  13  houses 
the  King  has  no  customs.  King  Edward  had  15 
acres,  in  which  resided  his  house-carles.  Milo  Crispin 
has  these,  though  it  is  not  known  how.  The  various 
feudatories  of  the  Crown  are  mentioned,  amongst 
whom  Milo  Crispin  holds  51  houses  in  the  district, 
In  the  time  of  the  Confessor  Wallingford  was  assessed 
at  £30,  later  at  £40,  now  at  £60,  but  nevertheless  it 
,  pays  asjirma  £80, 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      431 

1107.  Death  of  Milo  Crispin.  (Florence.)  His  daughter 
(some  authorities  say,  his  widow)  Matilda,  married 
Brian  Fitz-Count.  Matilda,  the  wife  of  Milo,  was  the 
daughter  of  Robert  d'Oilli  and  granddaughter  of 
Wigod,  Thane  of  Wallingford,  and  through  her 
descended  the  constableship. 

1126.  Waleran,  Earl  of  Mellent,  is  imprisoned  at  the 
castle.  (Orderic,  Sax.  Chron.) 

1128.  Brian  Fitz-Count  and  the  Earl  of  Gloucester  hold 
the  audit  of  the  exchequer  at  Winchester,  and  nego- 
tiate the  marriage  of  the  Empress  Matilda. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes. — Brian  Fitz-Count  accounts  for 
the  ftrma  of  Wallingford  at  £53  10s.  OJd.,  of  which 
he  pays  into  the  Treasury  £39  13s.  4d.  blanched. 
Also  for  the  auxiliwn  of  the  burg  at  £15,  respectively 
for  the  current  and  two  preceding  years,  but  in  each 
instance  it  is  remitted  "  by  the  King's  writ  in  pardon 
to  the  Burgesses  of  Wallingford  because  of  thftir 
poverty."  He  owes  £146  ISs.  4d.  for  the  office  and 
for  part  of  the  lands  of  Nigel  d'Oilli.  [The  office  was 
perhaps  the  constableship  of  Wallingford  Castle, 
probably  held  by  Nigel  (after  the  death  of  Milo)  aa 
uncle  to  Matilda  Crispin.] 

We  have  coins  bearing  the  name  of  Wallingford  of  the 
reigns  of  Athelstan,  Eadwig,  and  of  all  the  succeeding 
Saxon  kings,  but  the  mint  was  declining  in  importance ; 
for  although  in  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II  we  can  trace  the 
names  of  half  a  dozen  moneyers  at  a  time,  upon  the 
coins  of  the  Confessor  we  find  that  of  but  one. 

Domesday  is  unusually  explicit  in  its  returns  for  Wal- 
lingford,  but  the  entries  which  are  of  importance  to  our 
subject  are  those  concerning  the  fa-ma  of  the  burg  and 
the  moneyer.  In  the  time  of  the  Confessor  the-  firnta 
was  £30,  but  later,  probably  soon  after  the  Conquest,  it 
was  raised  to  £10,  and,  in  1086,  to  £60,  but  nevertheless 
it  actually  paid  £80.  Thus  the  burg  was  farmed  by  the 
King  to  the  burgesses,  and  as  there  is  no  separate  return 
from  the  mint,  we  may  assume  that  the  latter  was  in 


432 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


their  hands  also,  and  its  rent  included  in  their  firma. 
The  entry  that  the  moneyer  has  one  house  free  from  rent 
service  so  long  as  he  makes  the  money  curiously  confirms 
the  fact  that  our  coins  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  Harold  II, 
William  I  and  II,  after  allowance  has  been  made  for 
changes  during  the  currency  of  a  type,  demonstrate  that 
a  single  monejer  was  usually,  and  that  there  were  never 
more  than  two  aaoneyers,  at  that  time  in  office  at  Walling- 
ford.  But  the  entry  suggests  more  than  this ;  for  it 
would  seem  that  by  ancient  custom  the  royal  moneyer, 
or  moneyers,  he:d  their  houses  free  and  that  now,  when  the 
moneyer  had  beea  transferred  to  the  burgesses,  he  retained 
his  privileges.  Moreover,  it  also  implies  that  already 
the  mint  had  cetsed  to  be  constantly  worked,  and  so  a 
provision  was  inserted  in  the  Survey  that  the  privilege 
was  only  to  be  enjoyed  whilst  it  was  so  in  operation. 
The  result  of  this  would  be  that  when  the  burgesses  paid 
their  fcrma  in  full  foe  moneyer  was  free,  but  when  the  mint 
was  not  in  operatun,  and  the  annual  value  of  their  dies 
was  therefore  returned  to  them,  the  moneyer  had  to  con- 
tribute to  the  King's  usual  customs. 

Between  the  date  of  Domesday  and  that  of  the  1130 
Pipe  Roll  some  cdamity  must  have  befallen  the  town. 
In  1086  Wallingforl  was  evidently  in  a  condition  of 
prosperity,  for  its  jrma  has  been  more  than  doubled 
since  the  time  of  the  Confessor,  and  it  was  the  principal 
town  in  its  county,  bit  in  1130  its  firma  has  (unless 
the  entry  concerns  only  t  half- year's  return)  been  reduced 
to  one-half,  it  had  owed  two  years'  auxilmmy  and  the 
whole  for  the  three  years  is  returned  to  the  burgesses 
because  of  their  poverty.  Vhatever  this  calamity  was, 
our  coins  suggest  that  it  occurred  in  1101  or  1102;  for 
during  the  reigns  of  William  I  aid  II  coinage  had  been 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      433 

continued  during  the  issue  of  nearly  every  type,  and  upon 
Henry's  accession  type  251  (1100-1102)  duly  appears. 
But  now  there  is  a  gap  of  nearly  a  dozen  years,  and,  in 
estimating  the  probabilities  of  its  cause,  the  coincidence 
of  Duke  Robert's  invasion  of  the  district,  in  August,  1101, 
cannot  be  ignored.  Domesday  records,  under  Wallingford, 
that  when  the  King  raised  an  army  a  soldier  was  supplied 
and  equipped  from  every  five  hides  of  land  in  the  county, 
and  if  anyone  was  summoned  but  failed  to  join  the  army, 
the  whole  of  his  land  was  forfeited  to  the  King.  Hence  we 
maybe  justified  in  assuming  that  the  men  of  Wallingford 
did  not  take  the  field  for  the  King  in  his  emergency,  and 
that  when  the  crisis  was  passed  he  remembered,  and  pun- 
ished, their  desertion.  This  is  the  more  probable  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  a  similar  incident  would  seem  to  have 
occurred  in  the  neighbouring  city  of  Oxford,  where  Nigel 
d'Oilli  was  castellan,  uncle  to  the  wife  of  Milo  Crispin, 
castellan  of  Wallingford. 

In  1112-1114,  however,  the  mint  is  re-opened  with  type 
267  ;  no  doubt  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  the  demand 
for  the  dowry  of  the  Princess  Matilda  upon  the  occasion 
of  her  first  marriage  in  January,  1114.  We  next  find  it 
in  evidence  on  type  264  (1116-1119),  which,  perhaps, 
marks  the  collection  of  the  aid  for  the  marriage  of  Prince 
William  early  in  1120,  and,  finally,  type  265  (1126-1128) 
appears  to  represent  the  dowry  of  Matilda's  second 
marriage  in  1128.  The  occasions,  therefore,  upon  which 
these  three  types  were  issued,  exactly  fulfil  the  conditions 
of  a  mint  which,  "  because  of  the  poverty  of  the  burgesses," 
was  no  longer  a  profitable  commodity. 

Coinage  at  Wallingford  so  far  as  the  reign  of  Henry  I 
is  concerned  ceases  with  type  265  (1126-1128),  and  as  we 
have  so  often  seen,  the  invariable  condition  when  the  1130 


434  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Pipe  Roll  tells  us  that  the  auxilium  was  returned  to 
the  burgesses,  was  that,  for  the  particular  year  at  least,  the 
mint  was  closed.  In  this  case  the  whole  of  it  was  remitted, 
and  so  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  much  represented  the 
value  of  the  mint,  for  the  greater  would  include  the  lesser  ; 
but  it  is  clear  that  the  burg  was  in  an  impoverished 
condition  and  unable  to  pay  its  way,  so  the  demand  for 
an  exchange  and  a  currency  at  Wallingford  would  then 
be  small  indeed.  The  arrears  and  the  remission  of  the 
auxilium  date  from  the  year  between  Michaelmas,  1127,  and 
Michaelmas,  1128,  and  so  type  265  (1126-1128)  was 
probably  the  last  type  issued. 

That  the  mint,  although  still  retaining  its  royal  character, 
was  in  the  hands  and  under  the  direction  of  the  burgesses, 
is  proved  by  a  writ  of  the  23rd  year  of  Henry  III  directing 
the  bailiff  and  burgesses  to  choose  four  persons  of  the 
most  trustworthy  and  prudent  in  their  town  for  the  office 
of  moneyers  and  for  the  keeping  of  the  King's  mint  at 
Wallingford,  to  do  what  by  ancient  custom  was  to  be 
done  in  that  place  (Madox).  The  writ  suggests  that  the 
coinage  had  then,  as  so  often  occurred  in  Henry  Ps  reign, 
been  allowed  to  lapse,  and  this  is  borne  out  by  the 
coins.  Immediately  after  its  date,  however,  a  temporary 
revival  occurred  ;  but  shortly  afterwards  the  mint  was 
finally  closed. 

Not  only  is  Wallingford  closely  connected  with  Oxford 
geographically,  but  its  Saxon  and  Norman  history  is 
almost  identical.  Wigod,  the  Saxon  thane,  held  both 
towns,  and  his  daughter  and  heiress  married  Robert  d'Oilli. 
Their  daughter  Matilda  married  Milo  Crispin,  who  in  her 
right  received  the  Constableship  of  Wallingford.  After 
his  death,  according  to  an  Exchequer  record,  Henry, 
exercising  his  privilege  of  guardianship,  bestowed  her  in 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.      435 

marriage  to  Brian  Fitz-Count ;  but  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Milo  died  in  1107  and  Fitz-Count  does  not  appear  in 
history  until  at  least  twelve  years  later,  it  is  more  probable 
that  Brian  married  a  daughter  and  sole  heiress  of  Milo 
and  Matilda,  of  the  same  name  as  her  mother.  This  would 
allow  for  the  succession,  meanwhile,  of  Nigel  d'Oilli  as 
surviving  brother  of  Robert  d'Oilli  to  the  constableship 
of  Wallingford,  an  office  he  probably  held  until  his  death , 
circa  1128.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  most  of  the 
money er s  of  Wallingford  in  Norman  times  also  coined  at 
Oxford,  and  this  brings  us  to  what  may  be  a  mere 
coincidence,  but  ought  not  to  be  passed  unnoticed. 

The  Oseney  Charter  of  1129,  already  referred  to  under 
Oxford,  mentions  amongst  those  who  "  infra  biirgum 
OxenefordicK  terras  tenuerunt "  the  names  of  "  Godwinus 
monetarim  et  Brichtricus  monetarim,"  and  therefore  they 
may  be  assumed  to  have  been  moneyers  of  Oxford,  and 
the  Brihtred  and  God  wine  of  Domesday.  But  there  is  no 
reason  why  they  should  not  have  been  still  living  in  the 
first  half  of  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  but  transferred  from 
Oxford  to  Wallingford  to  conduct  the  occasional  coinage 
at  the  latter  mint ;  for  the  name  BEIHTIE  occurs  on  our 
Wallingford  coins  of  type  251  (1100-1102)  and  that  of 
60DPINE  similarly  on  type  267  (1112-1114). 

The  number  of  specimens  of  type  265  which  exist  of  the 
Wallingford  mint  is  remarkable,  and  is  far  in  excess  of 
those  of  the  same  type  of  any  other  town.  It  may  be  that 
there  has  been  an  unrecorded  find  of  these  coins  in  the 
neighbourhood  which,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  Tamworth 
hoard  of  William  II's  coins  and  of  the  Nottingham  find  of 
Stephen's  coins,  contained  a  larger  proportion  of  specimens 
of  the  local  mint  because  its  money  was  naturally  the  more 
plentiful  in  the  locality  of  deposit.  But  there  is  another 


436 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


possible  explanation  of  the  fact.  The  date  of  the  type  was 
1126-1128,  and  Malmesbury  tells  us,  under  the  latter 
year,  that  none  of  the  barons  advised  the  marriage  of  the 
Empress  Matilda  to  Geoffrey  of  Anjou,  "  or  indeed  knew 
of  it  except  Robert  Earl  of  Gloucester  and  Brian  Fitz- 
Count."  It  was  therefore  kept  secret  from  the  rest  of  the 
barons  until  celebrated  in  1128,  and  it  is  not  improbable 
that  the  supply  of  the  extra  coinage,  which  would  be 
necessary  to  meet  the  demand  for  currency  that  such 
an  event  entailed,  was  delegated  to  Brian  of  Wallingford, 
or  at  least  foreseen  and,  to  some  considerable  extent, 
provided  by  him  at  Wallingford. 


COINS. 
*BEIHTIC  ON  PLI6L 


•J.HNEI   .  EX  NL     251 


British  Museum.      From  the  Montagu,  1896, 
Sale,  £6  5s.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

•frGODPINE  :  ON  :  PELI6LE  267 

Bari  find.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 


LF  :  ON  :  PALL  :          ^.fiENEIEVS  E  :       264 
British  Museum.     Fig.  M,  page  68. 

.frOSVLF  :  ON  •  PELLI6L         ^.fiENEIEVS  E  :       265 

J.  Murdoch.  PL  VI.,  No.  10.  British 
Museum,  from  the  Strawberry  Hill  collection; 
Bodleian  Library,  2  specimens  ;  J.  S.  Hen- 
son  ;  P.  Carlyon-Britton  ;  Boyne  Sale,  1896, 
from  Halliburton  Young  Sale,  1869  ;  Mon- 
tagu Sale,  1886;  Ditto,  1888,  £6  5s.; 
Hendry  Sale,  1883;  Sale,  March,  1866, 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.      437 

£ 4  12s. ;  Sale,  April,  1878 ;  Tyssen  Sale, 
1802. 

*OSVLF  :  ON  :  PELLI6L         .frriENEIEVS  E  :      265 

British  Museum.  From  the  Bank  of  England 
collection ;  Hunterian  Museum,  Glasgow 
University ;  Bodleian  Library ;  H.  M. 
Reynolds,  22  grs.,  from  the  Martin,  1859, 
£ 2  2s.  and  Simpson  Rostron,  1892,  £6,  Sales. 

*OSVLF  :  ON  •  PELLI6LI       fchENEIEVS  E  :      265 

Engraved  Snelling,  i.,  22,  and  Withy  and 
Ryall,  ii.,  17 

Arnold  Sale,  1877.  251 

Dimsdale  Sale,  1824.  265 

There  are  certain  imitations  of  the  above  coins  of 
OSVLF  of  type  265  upon  which,  however,  the  moneyer's 
name  is  copied  as  OSWEF,  OSVEF  or  VSVEF,  the  first 
letter  being  so  vague  as  to  resemble  a  D,  but  open  at  the 
top.  On  the  obverse  the  drapery  to  the  left  of  the  bust 
is  in  nearly  horizontal  folds  instead  of  being  curved  as  on 
PI.  VI.,  No.  10-  There  are  also  other  deviations  in  the 
copies.  We  are  indebted  to  Mr.  L.  A.  Lawrence,  in 
Num.  Chron.,  3rd  ser.,  x.,  pp.  42-47,  for  the  discovery  and 
remarkable  demonstration  of  the  spuriousness  of  these 
fabrications. 


WAREHAM  (DOBSETSHIBK). 

WEABEHAM,  WEBHAM,    WAEEHAM,   WABBAM;     Domesday    and 
Pipe  Roll,  WABHAM. 

Wareham  was,  doubtless,  a  town  in  Celtic  times,  but 
our  historical  knowledge  of  it  seems  to  commence  with 
the  burial  of  King  Beorhtric  in  800.  In  876  it  fell  a  prey 

VOL.    I.     FOURTH   SERIES.  3  L 


438  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

to  the  Danish  invaders,  and  in  later  years  few  towns  were 
so  subject  to  their  incursions.  Nevertheless,  throughout 
the  Saxon  period,  Wareham  maintained  its  ancient  im- 
portance ;  for  it  was  not  until  it  was  devastated  at  the 
hands  of  the  Conqueror,  in  1067,  that  its  prosperity 
permanently  suffered. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  Wareham,  in  the  time  of 
King  Edward,  there  were  143  houses  in  lordship 
of  the  King.  This  town  rendered  service  to  the  King 
and  paid  geld  for  10  hides,  namely,  1  mark  of  silver 
to  the  King's  "  housecarles  "  except  for  the  customs 
relating  to  thejlrma  noctis.  At  that  time  there  were 
two  moneyers,  each  of  whom  paid  1  mark  of  silver 
to  the  King  [as  afirma]  and  20s.  whenever  the  money 
was  changed. 

Now  there  are  [in  the  King's  lordship]  70  houses, 
and  73  have  been  entirely  destroyed  since  the  time  of 
Hugh  the  Sheriff.  In  the  part  belonging  to  St. 
Wandrille  there  are  45  houses  standing  and  17 
destroyed,  and  in  the  part  belonging  to  different 
barons  20  standing  and  60  destroyed.  The  Castle  is, 
incidentally,  mentioned. 

1118.  King  Henry  imprisoned  Robert  deBeleme  in  Ware- 
ham  Castle  for  life.  (Rob.  de  Torigny.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— The  Sheriff  is  allowed  out  of  the 
County  returns  £18  6s.  for  the  keep  and  40s.  for 
the  clothing  of  Robert  de  Beleme,  and  2s.  is  paid  to 
the  carpenter  for  repairs  at  Wareham  Castle.  The 
various  burgs  of  the  County  contribute  £11  in 
auxilium. 

King  Athelstan,  by  his  law,  established  a  royal  mint 
here  and  assigned  to  it  two  moneyers.  Our  coins  of 
Wareham,  therefore,  commence  in  his  reign,  and  are  con- 
tinued in  those  of  all  his  Saxon  successors. 

Although  Domesday  explains  that  there  were  two 
moneyers  at  Wareham  in  the  time  of  the  Confessor,  it  is 
silent  as  to  their  existence  in  1086  ;  nevertheless,  we  know 
from  our  coins  that  the  two  moneyers  were  still  in  office. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      439 

It  therefore  follows  that,  as  Wareham  remained  a  royal 
burg,  the  mint  was  in  the  hands  of  the  burgesses,  and  we 
learn  from  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  a  century  later  that  then, 
at  least,  the  burg  itself  was  farmed  to  them.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  account  of  this  town  in  the  Survey  is, 
practically,  identical  with  that  of  Dorchester,  hence  what 
has  already  been  said  of  that  mint  will  equally  apply  to 
Wareham  and  need  not  be  repeated  here.  The  only 
difference,  however,  is  that  "Wareham  was  always  the 
more  important  mint  of  the  two,  and  therefore  we  have  a 
few  more  types  representing  it  under  the  Norman  Kings. 

But  although,  as  Domesday  tells  us,  more  than  half 
the  town  had  been  destroyed  in  the  time  of  Hugh  the 
Sheriff,  i.e.  in  1067,  the  mint,  after  a  short  interval, 
seems  to  have  maintained  its  average  output  during  the 
reigns  of  the  two  Williams,  and  it  was  not  until  after 
the  accession  of  King  Henry  that  it  degenerated  into  an 
intermittent  coinage  which  was  soon  to  terminate  in  its 
extinction.  Henry's  first  type,  251  (1100-1102),  however, 
duly  appears  upon  our  Wareham  coins.  But  it  is  the  last 
type  of  what  may  be  called  its  consecutive  coinage.  After 
this  date  there  is  a  long  interval,  when  no  doubt  the 
central  royal  mint  at  Winchester  supplied  the  demand  for 
currency  in  the  greater  portion  of  the  south-west  of 
England,  and  it  is  perhaps  doubtful  whether,  but  for 
subsequent  historical  events,  the  ancient  mint  of  Wareham 
would  not  then  have  been  finally  absorbed  into  that  of 
Winchester,  as  was  the  case  later  in  the  same  century. 

In  1113,  says  Robert  de  Torigny,  "King  Henry, 
retuoiing  to  England,  placed  Robert  de  Beleme  in  per- 
petual imprisonment  at  Wareham,"  and  Huntingdon,  in 
his  letter  to  Walter,  adds  that  "  he  died  after  a  long 
imprisonment ;  of  him  whose  fame  had  been  spread  every- 


440 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


where,  no  one  knew,  after  he  was  in  prison,  whether  he 
was  alive  or  dead,  and  report  was  silent  of  the  day  of  his 
death."  The  earlier  history  of  De  Beleme,  the  most 
powerful  of  Henry's  enemies,  either  in  England  or  in 
Normandy,  has  already  been  sketched  under  Chichester, 
pages  152-154,  and  it  was  not  until  November,  1112,  that 
he  fell,  and  that  somewhat  treacherously,  into  the  King's 
hands.  Henry  at  once  brought,  or,  as  the  Saxon  Chronicle 
has  it,  sent  him  to  England,  and  we  may  rest  assured  that 
he  placed  him  in  the  strongest  and  safest  of  his  castles 
available  for  the  purpose.  He  chose  that  of  Wareham, 
and  we  may  almost  infer  from  that  fact  that  it  was  under 
the  immediate  control  of  his  staunch  henchman  Roger, 
Bishop  of  Salisbury,  to  whom  at  the  same  period  was 
entrusted  the  custody  of  Duke  Robert  of  Normandy. 
This  meant  a  sudden  change  in  the  fortunes  of  Wareham, 
for  now  a  large  garrison  was  necessary  to  defend  the  castle 
from  any  possible  attempt  at  Earl  Robert's  release,  and  no 
doubt  the  town  benefited  generally  by  the  greater  demand 
for  money,  and  money's  worth,  entailed  by  the  conversion 
of  its  castle  into  a  state  prison.  The  mint  is  simultaneously 
reopened,  and  types  267  (1112-1114)  and  266  (1114-1116) 
are  in  evidence  to-day  of  this  special  demand  for  currency. 
Similarly  we  have  types  IV.  (1121-1123)  and  262  (1128- 
1131),  but  the  intermediate  types  were  either  never  issued 
or  have  escaped  discovery.  During  the  issue  of  type  262 
(1128-1131),  we  know  that  De  Beleme  was  still  alive,  for 
the  cost  of  his  keep  and  clothing  are  recorded  in  the  1130 
Pipe  Roll ;  but  as  we  may  be  certain  that  the  following 
type  255,  which  closed  the  reign,  was  never  issued  at 
Wareham — for  otherwise,  in  the  multitude  of  its  speci- 
mens, some  representative  coin  would  have  survived  to  us — 
and  as  in  the  troubled  times  of  Stephen  he  would,  if  living, 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  1.      441 

have  at  least  been  mentioned  by  historians,  which  he  is 
not,  we  may  hazard  the  suppositions  that  his  death 
occurred  in  the  year  1131,  that  the  garrison  was  reduced, 
and  that  the  mint  was  then  closed. 

With  regard  to  the  appropriation  of  the  coins  assigned 
to  this  mint  no  difficulty  arises  in  the  case  of  those  of 
the  moneyer  DEELINE,  for  on  type  267  (1112-1114)  he 
uses  the  form  PAEIxA ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  type 
262, which  has  PAEh.  Moreover,  according  to  the  "Winton 
Domesday,  circa  1116-1119,  Wigot  DELING  then  held 
certain  land  at  Winchester  which  ALESTAN  the  moneyer 
had  held  in  the  time  of  the  Confessor,  see  page  458. 
But  the  moneyer  SPEEfiAVOE  uses  PA  and  PAE  only, 
which  would  stand  equally  well  for  either  Wareham  or 
Warwick,  and  in  such  cases  almost  the  only  resources  of 
appropriation  are  in  the  identification  of  the  moneyer. 
Sperhavoc  is  pure  Anglo-Saxon  for  the  Sparrow-hawk, 
and,  as  a  name,  is  probably  a  corruption  of  Sperhavocere, 
the  Sparrow-hawker,  i.e.  the  Falconer.  As  such,  the  name 
is  of  rare  occurrence  either  upon  our  coins  or  in  our 
charters,  and  so  far  as  a  careful  search  has  disclosed  it 
is  not  known  in  relation  to  Warwickshire.  Upon  the  coins 
of  Winchester,  however,  with  which  mint  that  of  Wareham 
was  always  closely  connected,  the  name  of  a  moneyer 
"  SPEEAFVE  "  appears  in  the  reign  of  Canute.  But  the 
name  is  brought  home  to  Wareham  itself  in  our  mediaeval 
records,  for  a  family  of  SPEEHAWK  was  settled  there,  and 
a  charter  of  the  second  year  of  Henry  V  discloses  that 
John  Sperhawk  was  the  then  rector  .of  Holy  Trinity  Church, 
Wareham. 

COINS. 

+DIELI6  :  ON  :  PAEhA  267 

Bari  find. 


442  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

*DEELINE  :  ON  :  PAEA  *I\ENEI  EEX       266 

British  Museum.  Fig.  L,  page  65,  and 
PI,  VIII.  No.  8.  Engraved  Hawkins  266. 
Obverse,  the  third  star,  instead  of  being  in 
the  field,  is  at  the  close  of  the  legend. 

.*SPEEHAVIE  ON?B  .frHNBI  EEX  I      251 

British  Museum.  PL  VIII.  No.  1.  From  the 
Montagu,  1897,  Sale,  and  illustrated  No.  95 
in  that  catalogue.  As  to  the  moneyer,  see 
before. 

•frSPEEHEVOE  ON  PA  261 

Warne's  History  of  Dorset.  The  last  letter 
of  the  moneyer's  name  (as  on  page  64,  ante), 
is  misread  T. 

*  SPEEft  AVOE  :  ON  :  PAE   *  hENEIE  :  EEX  I  ^  ™l 

Spink  and  Son,  20£  grs.  Fig.  J,  page  64. 
From  the  Tyssen,  1802,  Cuff,  1854,  £7  10s., 
Murchison,  1864,  £5  2s.  6d.,Bergne,  1873, 
£10  15s.,Brice  and  Montagu,  1896,  £12  15s., 
collections.  Sketched  by  Mr.  Cuff  in  his, 
now  Mr.  Webster's,  copy  of  Kuding.  Since 
these  notes  were  written,  the  coin,  with 
several  others  illustrated  in  the  plates,  has 
passed  into  Mr.  Carlyon-Britton's  collection. 

*SPEEhAVEE  ON  PA  :      ^IiENEIEVS  EEX  AN   IV 
British  Museum. 


ON  :  PABIi  *I\  .......  B      262 


Sir  John  Evans.  19£  grs.  Purchased  at 
Rome.  There  are  faint  traces  of  a  moneyer's 
name  which  suggest  DEELIN6. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.      443 


WARWICK. 

WARENGWIO,  WARRINGWIC,  WABVIC,  WEBWIC  ;  Domesday  and 
Pipe  Roll,  WABWIC. 

It  is  improbable  that  the  natural  strength  of  the  situa- 
tion of  this  town  lay  neglected  until  the  year  915,  when, 
according  to  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  Ethelfleda  built  the 
burg  at  Warwick.  What  she  constructed  was,  doubtless, 
the  existing  mound,  for  she  had  probably  recovered  from 
the  Danes  a  town,  or  its  remains,  already  of  some 
antiquity. 

But  Warwick  plays  little  part  in  the  history  of  Saxon 
England,  for  in  later  times  its  fame  followed  upon,  rather 
than  contributed  to,  the  renown  of  its  Earls. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — In  the  burg  of  Warwick  the 
King  has  113  houses  within  his  lordship  ;  and  [certain] 
barons,  whose  names  are  given,  have  112,  from  all  of 
which  the  King  has  his  taxes.  In  addition  to  the 
above  there  are  19  burgesses  in  the  burg  who  have 
19  houses  with  sac  and  soc  and  all  customs  and  so 
held  them  in  the  time  of  King  Edward.  Four  houses 
were  destroyed  for  the  site  of  the  Castle.  The 
returns  of  the  burg  are  included  in  the  fees  of  the 
county,  but  it  also  contributes  6  sextaries  of  honey 
i.e.,  a  sextary  for  15  pennies,  out  of  a  total  of  24  of 
the  greater  measure  from  which  the  Earl  of  Mellent 
has  6  sextaries  and  5s.  The  custom  of  Warwick  was, 
that  when  the  King  raised  an  army  for  land  service 
10  burgesses  went  from  Warwick  on  behalf  of  all  the 
others,  and  if  any  one  was  summoned  but  did  not  go 
he  compounded  for  5s.  to  the  King ;  but  if  for  service 
against  the  King's  enemies  over  the  sea  they  sent  to 
him  either  4  "  batsueins  "  [A.-S.  i«tswan=boatswain] 
or  £4  of  pennies.  In  the  time  of  the  Confessor  the 
firnut  of  the  burg  and  the  tertius  denarius  of  the  pleas 
of  the  shire  were  in  the  King's  hands. 

1100.  "  The  dissensions  at  Henry's  accession  were 
allayed,  chiefly  through  the  exertions  of  Henry,  Earl 
of  Warwick,  a  man  of  unblemished  integrity  with 


444  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

whom  he  had    long  been  in  the  closest  intimacy." 
(Malmesbury.)     He   was    the    younger    brother    of 
Robert,  Earl  of  Mellent,  and,  later,  of  Leicester. 
The  Earl  witnesses  Henry's  coronation  charter. 

1101.  Is  faithful  to  him  during  Duke  Robert's  invasion 
(Malmesbury),  witnesses  the  charters  to  Norwich  at 
Windsor,  to  Colchester  and  to  Lewes.  (Monasticon.) 

1103.  Witnesses  the  charters  to  the  Abbey  of  Jumieges 
at  Winchester,  and,  probably  in  this  year,  that  of 
Bec-Hellouin.  (Docts.  of  France.) 

1108.  Witnesses  the  foundation  charter  of  St.  Andrew's, 
Northampton.  (Monasticon.) 

1114.  Witnesses  the  charter  to  Hyde  Abbey  at  Barnham, 
Sussex.  (Monasticon.) 

1123.  June  20th.  Date  of  his  death.  (Dugdale.)  But  this 
date  is  at  variance  with  that  assigned  by  Mr.  Round 
to  the  next  charter  ;  1119,  as  given  in  the  Annals  of 
Winchester,  is  probably  correct. 

1123.  April  15th.  He  is  succeeded  by  his  eldest  son, 
Roger,  who,  as  Earl  of  Warwick,  witnesses  the  charter 
to  Plympton  Priory.  (Mr.  Bound's  Feudal  England, 
p.  484.) 

1125.  Earl  Roger,  in  Normandy,  witnesses  the  charter  to 
Reading. 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.— The  Earl  accounts  for  £12  16s.  8d. 
and  two  war-horses  for  his  forestry  or  county  rights 
[cervorum],  which,  with  various  other  items,  suggests 
that  he  had  not  yet  paid  off  his  succession  dues.  He 
receives  revenue  from  the  returns  of  several  counties, 
and  his  mother,  Margaret,  "  Countess  of  Warwick," 
is  often  similarly  mentioned. 

1181.  September  8th.  Earl  Roger  attends  the  council 
at  Northampton  and  witnesses  the  charter  to  Salis- 
bury. 

1143.  The  Countess  Margaret,  widow  of  Earl  Henry, 
joins  in  a  charter  to  Bec-Hellouin  (Docts.  of  France). 
She  was  still  living  at  the  date  of  the  1157  Pipe  Roll. 


The  origin  of  the  mint  at  Warwick  probably  dates 
from  the  time  when  the  burgesses  acquired  the  right  to 
hold  their  town  by  military  custom — namely,  that  of 
supplying  ten  burgesses,  and  doubtless  their  followers,  to 
the  King's  army  against  the  Danes.  As,  therefore,  its 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      445 

coins  first  appear  in  the  reign  of  Ethelred  II,  we  may 
assume  that,  from  that  time  forward,  the  burgesses  held 
their  town  as  set  forth  in  Domesday.  Their  mint 
had  never  a  plentiful  output,  but  it  was  continued  in 
every  reign  from  the  time  of  Ethelred  to  that  of 
Stephen. 

As  such  it  would  not  come  under  the  scope  of  Domesday, 
for  it  was  one  of  the  privileges  of  the  burgesses  and  was 
included  in  their  firma  and  customs.     No  record,  therefore, 
of  its  contribution  to  the  returns  of  the  burg  are  forth- 
coming either  in  the  Survey,  or,  later,  in  the  Pipe  Boll. 
The  creation,  therefore,  of  the  Earldom  of  Warwick  could 
not  disturb  the  ancient  privileges  of  the  burgesses  which 
they  held  by  prescriptive  right,  but  would  only  divert  a 
third  of  their  firma  and  customs.   In   other  words,  the 
King  could  not  grant  to  the  Earl  what  was  no  longer  his, 
and  so  the  mint  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  burgesses. 
It  may,  however,  have  fallen  under  the  Earl's  jurisdiction, 
and  so  become  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  issue  as  if  it 
had  been  his  official  prerogative ;  but  its  history  during  the 
reign  of  Henry  I,  as  judged  by  the  remarkable  scarcity  of 
its  coins,  is  rather  that  of  a  civic  mint,  neglected,  and  gradu- 
ally falling  into  disuse,  than  that  of  a  mint  under  the  im- 
mediate jurisdiction  of  one  of  the  foremost  Earls  of  the  land. 
In  Henry's  reign,  apparently,  its  moneyers  had  already 
been  reduced  to  one,  and,  so  far  as  the  accident  of  dis- 
covery has  yet  disclosed,  it  would   seem  that  only  two 
types  were  issued.     The  first  is  type  253  (1104-U06), 
which  was,  perhaps,  issued  in   response  to  the  special 
demand  for  currency  in  the  Midlands  occasioned  by  the 
King's  Council    at   Northampton,  in   Lent,  1106.     The 
second  is  type  265   (1126-1128),  and  no  doubt  met  the 
monetary  requirements  of  the  red-letter  year  in  the  history 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  "  M 


446  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

of  Warwick  when  the  young  Earl  Roger,  who,  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  charters,  already  bore  that  title,  returned  from 
Normandy,  probably  with  Henry,  in  September,  1126, 
and  was  invested  with  the  feudal  possession  of  the 
Earldom. 

In  assigning  these  two  types  to  Warwick  some  explana- 
tion should  be  offered,  because,  although  no  doubt  can  be 
raised  as  to  the  latter,  for  the  legend _  60DPINE  ON: 
PARPIC :  is  unusually  conclusive,  the  former  reads 
OSMIEE  ON  PEE  which  might  equally  well  be  given  to 
Wareham.  The  name  of  the  moneyer,  however,  is  not 
known  in  connection  with  the  latter  town,  either  upon  its 
coins  or  its  records,  but  it  occurs  on  coins  of  Ethelred  II, 
reading  ON  P2EEINE,  which  reading  of  course  represents 
Warwick,  and  therefore  in  default  of  better  evidence  we 
may  assume  that  the  family  was  still  at  Warwick  in  the 
days  of  Henry  I,  even  if  the  office  of  moneyer  had  not 
meanwhile  been  handed  down  from  father  to  son.  If, 
however,  the  reading  on  the  second  coin  of  the  same  type 
can  be  relied  upon  no  argument  is  necessary;  for  PEEI 
must  represent  Warwick. 

So  far  as  our  numismatic  knowledge  extends  we  must 
infer  that  the  mint  at  Warwick  was  closed  in  the  reign 
of  Stephen.  Yet  Ross  in  Historic!,  Regum  Anglice  (ed. 
Thos.  Hearne,  1716),  p.  194,  speaking  of  the  time  of 
Richard  I,  says  that  he  ascertained  from  certain  docu- 

'  »/ 

ments  [prohably  destroyed  afterwards  in  the  fire  of  1694], 
in  the  chancery  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  the  names  of  the 
moneyers  at  that  time  [temp.  Ric.  I]  and  previously,  such 
as  Baldred,  Everard,  and  others  whose  office  was,  without 
doubt,  on  the  site  of  the  later  College.  Ruding,  in  vol.  ii., 
p.  224,  quotes  the  passage,  and  Mr.  Gr.  F.  Hill  has  kindly 
referred  to  the  original  authority  in  the  British  Museum 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HEXRY  I.      447 

from  which  the  above  particulars  are  extracted.  This 
reminds  us  of  the  story  of  Chatterton,  but  nevertheless 
it  is  true,  for  the  name  of  the  moneyer  upon  the  latest 
coins  we  have  of  this  mint  is  EVEEAED — viz.,  of  the 
reign  of  Stephen — and  therefore,  if  we  read  "  tune  et  ante  " 
not  too  literally,  we  have  the  remarkable  instance  of  the 
preservation  for  some  five  hundred  years  of  the  name  of 
at  least  one  of  the  last  of  its  moneyers  in  the  local  records 
of  Warwick.  As  to  Baldred  we  know  nothing,  but  the 
identification  of  his  colleague  raises  a  suspicion  that  he, 
perhaps,  coined  here  for  a  short  period  about  the  date  of 
the  accession  of  Henry  II,  when  in  consequence  of  the 
immediate  suppression  of  the  mint  his  coins  were  but  few 
and  as  yet  have  not  been  discovered. 


COINS. 
.J.60DPINE  ON  :  PAEPIO  :         .frhENEIEVS  E     265 

W.  J.  Andrew.  PI,  VII.  No.  2.  A  Godwine 
coined  here  in  the  previous  reign. 

*OSMIEE  ON  PEE  *riENEI  EEX       253 

Warne  Sale,  1889.  Illustrated  in  the  catalogue 
and  also  in  his  "  History  of  Dorset,"  PI.  I., 
No.  15.  As  to  the  moneyer,  see  before. 

•J.OS PEEI  253 

H.  P.  Smith  Sale,  1886.     "ON  ....  PEEI " 

in  the  catalogue. 

The  specimen  of  type  255  queried  to  this 
mint  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Clark  Sale,  18J8 
is  the  coin  of  Norwich  reading  *TOE  [ON] 
NOEWIE. 


448  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

WILTON    (WILTSHIRE). 

WILTUN,      WILLETUN,       Wvi/TON,      WiLTONiA  ;      Domesday, 
WILTUNE  ;  Pipe  Eoll,  WILTONA. 

As  far  backward  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of  "Wilton  it 
was  always  a  royal  town,  and  as  such  it  originally  gave  its 
name  to  the  County.  According  to  a  charter  of  Ethel wulf, 
dated  854,  the  King  held  his  court  "  in  palacio  nostro  quod 
dicitur  Wiltun"  and  here,  in  871,  Alfred  fought  his  first 
battle,  after  his  accession,  against  the  Danes.  In  1003, 
Sweyn,  the  Dane,  "  led  his  army  into  Wilton,  and  they 
spoiled  the  town  and  burned  it."  Afterwards  for  nearly 
a  century,  until  united  with  that  of  Salisbury,  it  was  the 
See  of  a  bishopric,  and  its  famous  nunnery  was  the  early 
home  of  two  Queens  of  England,  Edith,  Consort  to  the 
Confessor,  and  Matilda  of  Scotland,  Queen  to  Henry  I. 


1086.  Domesday  Notes. — "  The  King  has  from  the  burg 
of  Wilton  £50.  When  Hervey  [the  Sheriff]  received 
it  into  his  custody,  it  was  paying  £22."  The  holding 
of  the  Church  of  St.  Mary  at  Wilton  in  the  burg 
itself  is  worth  £10  17s.  6d. 

1130.  Pipe  Boll  notes. — Certain  burgesses,  whose  names 
will  be  found  below,  account  for  fines  "  upon  a 
Treasury  plea,"  but  the  greater  part  of  the  fines  is 
remitted.  The  burgs  in  the  County  contribute  25s. 
for  the  previous  year,  and  £17  18s.  for  the  current 
year,  as  auxilium.  The  Church  of  St.  Edith  receives 
41s.  from  the  customs  of  estovers  which  Queen 
Matilda  gave  [to  her  old  school]  and  25s.  6d.  from 
the  fair,  which  the  King  and  Queen  had  granted. 
The  Sheriff  pays  [to  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury]  40s. 
as  "  toll  of  the  Market  at  Salisbury,  which  pertains  to 
the  firma  of  Wilton  [and]  which  the  King  gave  to 
the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  inasmuch  as  the  Queen  had 
previously  granted  it  to  the  Church  of  Salisbury." 

Wilton  was  a  comparatively  prolific  Saxon  mint  from 
the  time  of  Edgar  until  the  Conquest ;   it  was  a  royal 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      449 

mint,  and  seems  to  have  usually  employed  three  moneyers. 
This  condition  prevailed  under  William  I  until  the  time 
came  when  Herman,  Bishop  of  Sherborne  and  Wilton, 
finally  removed  the  joint  See  to  Salisbury. 

Whether  the  decline  in  the  coinage  was  owing  to  this 
removal,  or  whether  the  same  cause,  such,  perhaps,  as  the 
gradual  decay  of  the  burg,  influenced  the  removal  of  the 
See  and  the  cessation  of  regular  coinage,  is  a  matter  of 
uncertainty,  but  it  is  evident  that,  coincidentally  with 
such  removal,  the  mint  of  Wilton  discontinued  its  con- 
stant output,  and  afterwards,  as  already  explained  under 
Southampton,  seems  only  to  have  issued  its  money  when 
some  special  demand  for  currency  would  render  such  issue 
profitable. 

As  the  mint  is  omitted  from  the  Domesday  returns  it 
must  either  have  been  farmed  to  the  burgesses  in  their  firma 
or  have  been  in  private  hands.  But  the  former  alternative 
was  clearly  the  case  as  the  King  held  the  burg,  and,  there- 
fore, no  territorial  lord  could  hold  the  mint.  A  writ  of 
Henry  III,  however,  which  is  almost  identical  with  that 
quoted  under  Wallingford  (page  434),  proves  the  fact,  for 
we  know  of  no  constitutional  changes  in  the  interim  in 
the  history  of  Wilton,  and  therefore  the  mint  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  burgesses. 

Under  Southampton,  page  407,  we  have  incidentally 
noticed  the  decline  of  the  Wilton  coinage,  and  that  at  the 
date  of  King  Henry's  accession  it  had  already  become  a 
dead  letter,  save  when  some  special  demand  for  currency 
rendered  it  worth  the  while  of  the  burgesses  to  obtain 
their  dies  from  London  and,  perhaps,  to  borrow  their 
moneyers  from  the  central  royal  mint  at  Winchester. 
These  occasions,  so  far  as  the  reign  of  Henry  I  was  con- 
cerned, were :  (1)  When  at  Whitsuntide,  1106,  the  King 


450  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

held  his  Court  at  Salisbury,  but  some  three  miles  away. 
This  is  represented  by  type  253  (1104-1106).  (2)  When 
the  dowry  for  the  Princess  Matilda's  marriage,  January, 
1114,  was  being  collected  throughout  the  Kingdom;  and 
when  the  King  returned  with  his  army  from  Wales,, 
probably  through  Wilton,  to  Portsmouth,  where  he 
embarked  for  Normandy  on  September  1st,  1114.  Hence 
type  267  (1112-1114)  appears.  (3)  When  in  1129-30  the 
King  was  at  Southampton  and,  probably,  at  Shaftesbury  and 
Salisbury,  which  event  accounts  for  type  262  (1128-1131). 
With  the  exception  of  the  first  instance  only  one 
moneyer's  name  occurs  on  the  types  of  this  reign,  although 
in  earlier  and  also  in  later  Norman  times,  when  the  mint 
was  in  operation,  there  were  always  two  or  more  money ers 
at  Wilton.  As  we  have  seen  above,  the  latest  of  Henry's 
types  is  that  contemporary  with  the  1130  Pipe  Roll,  and 
the  fact  that  we  find  the  name  of  one  only  of  the  minimum 
number  of  two  moneyers  upon  it  suggests  an  explana- 
tion of  an  entry  in  the  Roll,  viz.,  that  the  moneyer  who 
did  not  coin  was  fined  for  default.  It  would  seem  that  in 
1129  Ralph  Basset,  the  King's  Justiciary,  had  held  an 
assize  in  the  town,  at  which  an  inquiry  had  been  made 
into  the  Treasury  returns  for  the  burg,  and  in  consequence 
several  of  its  burgesses  had  been  amerced  in  large  fines. 
It  may  be  assumed  that  these  burgesses  held  certain 
offices  under  the  Crown,  and  that  they  had  failed  to  carry 
out  their  duties  or  at  least  to  make  an  adequate  return 
through  the  Sheriff  to  the  Treasury.  They  were  perhaps 
responsible  for  the  various  customs,  or  even  for  thejirma 
of  the  burg.  But  it  appears  that  they  had  pleaded  their 
inability  to  pay  the  fines  because  of  their  poverty,  and 
this  plea,  when  compared  with  the  oft-repeated  explana- 
tion of  the  very  similar  passages  in  connection  with  the 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      451 


auxilium  and  the  coinage,  suggests  that  the  burg  itself  was 
in  an  impoverished  condition,  and  that  therefore  the 
various  customs  for  which  they  were  responsible  could  not 
be  performed.  Hence  as  the  officials  had  not  received 
the  dues  they  could  not  pay  the  amercements,  and  the 
fines  were  in  consequence  reduced  to  merely  nominal 
amounts.  The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  list,  although 
it  is  always  difficult  in  the  County  returns  to  distinguish 
which  entries  relate  to  a  particular  burg. 


Name. 

Original  Fine. 

Nominal 
Fine. 

Cause  of  Remission. 

£       B.      d. 

£ 

Hubert  of  Wilton      . 

62    0    0 

8 

His  poverty. 

Atsor  of  Wilton    . 

63     3    4 

5 

Ditto. 

Thomas,  the  Money  er 

11  16    8 

1 

Ditto. 

Robert  Fitz  Swein     . 

192 

Nil 

j  He  is  ill,  and 
{  has  nothing. 

In  the  above  list  the  name  Thomas,  the  moneyer,  is 
conspicuous  for  it  discloses  his  office.  As  the  name  on  the 
current  type  is  Richard,  we  may  assume  that  Thomas  was 
the  other  moneyer,  who  failed  to  coin  when  the  burgesses 
re-opened  the  mint  in  order  to  issue  type  262,  and  that, 
therefore,  he  was  fined  ;  but  as  he  evidently  pleaded  that 
he  was  too  poor  to  pay  the  fees  and  to  undertake  the  risk, 
his  fine  was  reduced  to  the  amount  which,  as  before  ex- 
plained, seems  to  have  been  the  nominal  rent  for  a  pair  of 
dies.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  if  amerced  in  his 
individual  capacity  he  would  have  received  any  consider- 
ation, or  that  at  a  later  date  he  would  ever  have  been 
allowed  to  coin— as  he  subsequently  was— and  so  we  may 
take  it  that  in  his  official  capacity  he  represented  the 
burgesses,  and  that  his  plea  of  poverty  meant  that  the 


452  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

small  demand  for  currency  would  not  support  the  cost 
of  two  moneyers  at  Wilton  and  that  the  town  was  too  poor 
to  employ  or  pay  the  fees  for  more  than  one.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  when  the  mint  was  again  re- 
opened upon  the  accession  of  Stephen,  Thomas  is  one  of  the 
moneyers  whose  names  appear  upon  its  coins. 

From  other  entries  in  the  Roll  it  would  seem  that  the 
county  was  in  a  very  disturbed  state,  for  many  burgesses 
were  punished  for  various  offences  and  murder  and  robbery 
were  prevalent  throughout. 

Coinage  at  Wilton  was  continued,  with  similar  intervals, 
until  the  reign  of  Henry  III. 

COINS, 

*IEGELPAED  ON  P1L  *HENEI  EEX       253 

Spink  and  Son.     PI.  II.  No.  11. 

.frBEVNIG  :  ON  :  PILTV          *I\ENEIE  :  EEX        267 

British  Museum.  Fig1. 1,  page  60,  and  PI.  VIII. 
No.  6.  From  the  Brice  and  Montagu,  1896, 
£8,  collections.  The  moneyer's  name  occurs 
at  Winchester  in  the  previous  reign. 

•frEIEAED  ON  :  PILTVN          ^.hENEIEYS  E  :      262 

F.  A.  Walters.  From  the  Allen  Sale,  1898. 
As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

•frSIEELI  ON?IL  .fcHEN 253 

Lincoln  and  Son.  The  moneyer  was,  probably, 
the  SIEPINE  and  SEPINE  who  coined  here  in  the 
previous  reign,  and,  possibly,  the  SPEIN,  father 
of  Robert  Fitz  Swein,  before  mentioned. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN    OF    HENRY  I.       453 


WINCHESTER  (HAMPSHIRE). 

WlNTANCEASTER,       WlNCEASTER,       WlTTAtiCEASTER  ;      Domesday, 

WINCESTER  and  WINTONIA  ;  Pipe  Roll,  WINTONIA. 

At  the  dawn  of  English  history,  Winchester,  the  Venta 
Belgarum  of  the  Legions,  was  one  of  our  principal  cities, 
and  the  rectangular  plan  of  its  streets  to-day  is  a  survival 
of  its  Roman  foundation.  Under  the  year  643  the  Saxon 
Chronicle  tells  us  that  Ken  walk,  King  of  the  West 
Saxons,  commanded  a  church  to  be  built  at  Winchester, 
in  the  name  of  St.  Peter,  and  which,  upon  its  completion, 
became  the  episcopal  See  of  the  West  Angles.  Win- 
chester was  the"  chief  city  of  the  Kings  of  Wessex,  and  as 
their  government  spread  over  the  rest  of  the  kingdom,  it 
became  the  capital  of  Saxon  England.  As  such  it  was 
the  favourite  meeting-place  of  the  Witan,  the  centre  of 
the  Exchequer  system,  and  the  stronghold  of  the  royal 
treasury.  In  860  the  city  was  stormed  by  the  Danes, 
and  in  1013  it  submitted  to  Sweyn,  but  it  seems  to  have 
suffered  little  at  their  hands,  and  at  the  date  of  the 
Conquest  vied  with  London  as  the  most  prosperous  city  in 
the  kingdom. 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — Although  Winchester  is  often 
incidentally  mentioned,  its  returns  are  omitted  from 
the  Survey.  As  in  the  case  of  London  it  is  sug- 
gested that  a  similar  local  record  was  at  the  time 
already  in  existence,  but  was  lost  prior  to  1116, 
perhaps  destroyed  in  the  fire  of  1102,  for  Henry  I 
caused  a  new  survey  of  the  city  to  be  made. 

1100.  At  the  date  of  Henry's  accession  the  See  had  been 
vacant  for  nearly  three  years.  The  King,  following 
the  example  of  Rufus,  immediately  possesses  him- 
self of  the  royal  treasure.  He  appoints  William 
Giffard,  his  chancellor,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  but  the 
bishop  elect  refuses  consecration  pending  settlement 
of  the  controversy  as  to  investitures. 

TOL.    I.    FOURTH   SERIES.  "  X 


454  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

August-September.     Henry  meets  Duke  Robert  at  "Wh 
Chester  preparatory  to  the  treaty  of  peace. 

1102.  "A  fire  broke  out  in  the  centre  of  this  city,  whicl 
destroyed  the  royal  palace,  the  mint,  &c.,  and  a  great 
proportion  of  the  inhabitants'  houses."     (Ruding,  ii., 
173.) 

1103.  Bishop  William  joins  Anselm  in  exile.   (Florence.) 
1107.     August. — Is  consecrated  by  Anselm. 

October  7. — Fall  of  the  Cathedral  Tower.     (Annals  of 

Winchester.) 
1111.     "The  King  commands  that  the  new  monastery, 

which  stood  within  the  walls  of  Winchester,  should, 

under  the  direction    of    Bishop  William,    be   rebuilt 

without  the  walls."     (Florence.) 
The  Bishop,  whether  he  wishes  or  not,  has  to  give  800 

marks  to  the  King.     (Annals  of  Winchester.) 
1121.     January    30. — Bishop   William    officiates    at    the 

King's  second  marriage.     (Florence.) 
1125.     Christmas. — The  great  inquisition  of  the  moneyers 

is  held  at  Winchester.     See  pages  80  and  81. 

1128.  William    Giffard,     Bishop    of    Winchester,    dies. 
(Annals  of  Winchester.) 

1129.  "  Henry,  the  nephew  of  King  Henry,  son  of  his 
sister    Adela,     brother   of    Stephen  .  .  .  afterwards 
King,     from    being    Abbot    of  Glastonbury    became 
Bishop  of  Winchester."     (Annals  of  Winchester.) 

1130.  Pipe   Roll   notes. — The   sheriff   accounts   for  the 
auxdium  of  the  city  at  114  shillings  as  arrears  of  the 
year  1127-28,  £17  Is.  8d.as  arrears  of  the  year  1128-29, 
and  ±'80  for  the  current  year.  The  Guilds  of  the  Cloth- 
weavers  and  Fullers  are  mentioned,  and  reference  is 
made  to  the  fact  that  the  bishop  had  previously  been 
Abbot  of  Glastonbury.     Certain    entries  relating  to 
moneyers  will  be  detailed  below. 

1134.  Bishop    Henry    fulfils   the    office    of    Legate   in 
England.     (Annals  of  Winchester.) 

1135.  At  the  King's  death  "  an  immense  treasure  hac 
been  accumulating  for  many  years  ;  his  coin,  and  that 
of  the  best  quality,  was  estimated  at  £100,000 ;  be- 
sides which,  there  were  vessels  of  gold  and  silver  of 
great  weight  and  inestimable  value,  collected  [at  the 
Winchester   treasury]    by   the   magnificence    of  pre- 
ceding   kings,    but    chiefly   by    Henry."     (Malmes- 
bury. ) 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      455 

1100-1135.  When  in  England  the  King's  Court  was 
usually  held,  either,  at  Winchester  or  Westminster 
throughout  the  reign. 

Coinage  at  "Winchester  must  have  originated  long 
before  the  time  when  it  became  customary  to  add  the 
place  of  mintage  upon  the  money,  for  its  name  first 
appears  on  the  coins  of  Alfred.  Athelstan,  by  his  Law, 
established  six  moneyers  here,  thus  showing  that  the  mint 
was  already  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  Kingdom, 
and  it  maintained  its  royal  character  until  its  close  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  III.  We  have  specimens  of  it  of  the 
reigns  of  Athelstan  and  Eadwig,  'and  of  all  the  latter's 
successors  to  Henry  III. 

To  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  Dane-gelt,  Ethelred  II 
seems  to  have  doubled  the  number  of  his  moneyers  at 
Winchester,  but  subsequently  they  were  gradually 
decreased  until,  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  coins 
of  the  two  Williams,  after  the  usual  allowances  have 
been  made  for  changes  during  the  currency  of  a  type,  it 
seems  certain  that  the  number  had  then  been  restored  to 
the  original  six. 

This  is  important  in  view  of  the  Survey,  known  to  us 
as  the  "  Winton  Domesday,"  for,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  the  study  of  numismatics  will  assist  us  in  ascertaining 
its  approximate  date.  This  Survey  comprises  two  distinct 
records  which,  except  for  the  fact  that  they  have  been 
preserved  together,  have  no  more  to  do  with  each  other 
than  two  Pipe  Rolls  would  have  if  separated  in  date  by 
some  thirty  years.  The  earlier  of  these  two  records  is,  as 
its  introduction  tells  us,  an  inquest  of  the  lands  which 
used  to  pay  land  and  burg  tax  to  the  King  in  the  time  of 
Edward  the  Confessor,  and  which  the  then  King 
[Henry  I],  being  desirous  of  ascertaining  what  King 


456  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Edward  had  held  in  lordship  in  Winchester,  ordered  to  be 
made  upon  the  oaths  of  the  burgesses.  An  inquest  was 
accordingly  held  by  four  score  and  six  superior  burgesses 
in  the  presence  of  William,  the  Bishop,  Herbert,  the 
Chamberlain,  Ralph  Basset,  Geoffrey  Ridel,  and  William 
de  Pont-de-1'Arche.  The  later  record,  which,  except  for 
the  purpose  of  incidental  reference,  does  not  now  concei 
us,  is  an  enquiry  made  by  Bishop  Henry  in  1148  as 
the  lands  of  the  Bishopric  at  Winchester. 

King  Henry's  Inquest  is  undated  and,  although  model 
historians  may  have  more  closely  ascertained  its  year,  the 
writer  is  unaware  of  any  nearer  approximation  than  that 
of  the  Editors  of  Domesday,  viz.,  some  time  between  1107 
and  1128.  If,  therefore,  the  study  of  numismatics  can 
throw  light  upon  its  true  date  it  is  but  another  proof  of 
the  historical  value  of  our  coinage. 

The  Inquest  tells  us  that  "  in  the  market  there  had 
been  five  mints  [i.e.  moneyers]  which  were  abolished  by 
order  of  the  King  [Henry  I],"  and  therefore,  as  we  have 
seen  that  there  were  not  more  than  six  moneyers  in  Win- 
chester at  the  death  of  Rufus  this  would  only  leave  one 
moneyer  in  office.  Such  is  exactly  what  the  evidence  of 
our  coins  discloses  must  have  happened  immediately  upon 
Henry's  accession;  for  upon  his  first  type,  251  (1100- 
1102),  the  names  of  two  moneyers  appear,  on  his  third, 
(his  second  being  absent),  253  (1104-1106),  that  of  one 
moneyer,  on  his  fourth,  252  (1106-1108),  the  names  of 
two,  on  his  fifth,  256  (1108-1110),  that  of  one,  on  his 
sixth,  257  (1110-1112),  that  of  one  ;  and  so  on  up  to  his 
thirteenth  type,  which  after  allowing  for  the  fact  that 
the  mint  would,  like  the  shrievalty,  be  farmed  by  the  year 
to  the  favoured  applicant,  only  accounts  for  a  single 
moneyer  at  a  time.  On  Henry's  thirteenth  type,  265 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      457 

(1126-1128),  some  at  least  of  the  five  moneyers  must  have 
been  restored,  for  we  find  five  names  upon  it,  and  on  the 
following  type  the  number  exactly  corresponds  with  the 
complement  of  six  moneyers  at  Winchester.     Therefore 
as  the  Inquest  was  made  whilst  the  five  moneyers  were 
still  in  abeyance,  it  must  have  been  compiled  after  1100, 
and  before   1126.     Another  passage,  however,  materially 
shortens  the  period ;  it  is  that  "  the  widow  of  WIMVND 
the  moneyer  now  pays  tax  at  6d.  for  one  house  and  no 
other  customs  and  is  at  the  hospital."     Two  Wimunds 
coined  in  the  reign,  doubtless  father  and  son.     We  find 
the  name  of  the  former  as  WIMVND  on  coins  issued  at 
Winchester  late  in  the  time  of  William  I,  on  those  of 
William  II,  and  on  most  of  the  types  struck  during  the 
first  half  of  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  the  latest  being  type 
267  (1112-1114) ;  therefore  the  date  of  the  Inquest  could 
not  be  earlier  than  1112,  for  he  was  living  in  the  autumn, 
of  that  year.     The  second  Wimund  did  not  commence 
his  coinage  until  after  1128,  and  therefore  does  not  affect 
the  question.     So  far  this  is  direct  evidence,  but  we  may 
infer  that  the  date  must  have  been  prior  to  1121,  when 
on  type  IY.  (1121 -1123)  the  name  EN6ELEAM  appears. 
The  name  is  unusual,  and  does  not  occur  in  the  whole  of 
this  Inquest ;  hence  Engelram  could  not  have  held  any 
official  appointment,  or  even  been  a  tenant  of  the  King's, 
when  the  Inquest  was  made.     He  continued  to  coin  in  the 
reign  of  Stephen,  and  consequently  his  name  appears  in 
the  1148  Survey,  but  its  absence  from  the  earlier  roll  is 
the  more  significant  when  we  notice  that  prior  to  1121 
the  office  of  moneyer  had  been   held  in   various  years- 
by   five    moneyers,    viz.,  WIMVND,    60DPINE,   A1NVLF 
[Arnulf],  SAIET,  and  AILJ7INE,  and  all  of  these  names 
appear  amongst  the  lists  of  the  King's  tenants.     We  may 


458 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


therefore  narrow  the  date  to  between  1112  and  1121. 
The  identification  of  the  above  moneyers  will  be  apparent 
from  the  following  table,  which  includes  some  of  the  five 
moneyers  of  the  Confessor's  time  whose  office  was  vacant 
at  the  date  of  the  Inquest. 


Tenant  under  the  Confessor. 

Name  on  the  Confessor's 
Coins. 

Tenant  of    same 
property    at  date 
of  Inquest. 

Name  on 
Henry  I's  Coins. 

Alwine   Aitardessone, 

ALPINE     .    . 

Godfrey  de 

MPI6  and 

the  moneyer. 

Colcha 

EfiEPIG, 

Alwin 

Chiping  fitz 

MP1NG 

Alwin 

(Stephen). 

Godwine  Socche,  the 

GODPINE  .     . 

The  Monks 

— 

chief  moneyer. 

of     St. 

Swithin's. 

SIDELOE      on 

The  widow 

PIMVND. 

Wa  r  e  h  a  m 

of    Wim- 

coins      of 

und,    the 

William     I. 

moneyer. 

See  page  449. 

Andrebode,        the 

ANDREBODE 

Ruald     fitz 

— 

moneyer. 

Faderlin. 

Alward     fitz     Etard, 

ZELPERD      on 

Godwine 

GODPINE. 

"  moneyer  to  King 

Shaftesbury 

and  others 

Edward." 

coins.      See 

page  407. 

Alestan,  the  moneyer 

ADESTAN 

WigotDelinc 

DERLINE 

onWareham 

coins,  1112- 

1114.    See 

page  441. 

Brunstan  Blachebiert, 

BRVNSTAN     . 

Saiet  Arnulf 

SAIET 

Brunstan. 

and  Ulf. 

AINVLF 

VLFPTNE. 

Brithmar  "Aurifaber" 

BRIHTMZER   . 

Deria     .     . 

— 

GODPINE-EE 

Balvert  . 



-OEA 

Alnod  Stud'     .     .     . 

— 

Odo,      the 

— 

moneyer 

A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      459 

In  the  above  list  it  will  be  noticed  that  only  in  two  cases 
is  the  title  Monetarius   given   to  any  of  King  Henry's 
tenants,  and  yet  in  five  instances  of  the  Confessor's  tenants 
it  occurs,  and  Aurifaber  ("  the  goldsmith,"  but  often  used 
after  a  moneyer's  name)  makes  the  sixth.     Hence  we  may 
infer  that  the  title,  like  that  of  Sheriff,  was  only  appended 
to  the  names  of  those  who  were  actually  in  office  during 
the  current  year,  viz.,  in  the  one  case  that  of  the  death  of 
the  Confessor,  and  in  the  other  that  of  the  date  of  the 
Inquest.     The  two  instances  in  Henry's  reign  are    (1) 
WIMVND,  but  as  this  occurs  in  the  description  of  his  widow, 
it  merely  suggests  that  he  had  died  in  office,  (2)  "  Odo  the 
money er ";   Odo  ought  therefore  to  be  the  name  on  the 
current  type,  but  it  is  as  yet  missing  from  our  specimens. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  every  other  name  to  which 
the  title  is  appended,  either  in  this  Inquest  or  in  that  of 
1148,  can  be  identified  upon  our  coins.      When,  there- 
fore, we  notice  the  further  coincidence  that  within  the 
limits  of  time  to  which  we  have  now  reduced  the  date  of 
the  Inquest,  i.e.  1112,  or  more  probably  1114,  to  1121, 
there  is  a  type  missing  also  from  the   Winchester  coins, 
namely,   264   for  the   years   1116-1119,  we  are  almost 
justified  in  assuming  that  Odo's  name  would  be  found  upon 
it,  that  it  was  the  current  type  and  that  the  actual  date  of 
the  Inquest  must    be    between    Michaelmas    1116  and 
Michaelmas  1119. 

Glancing,  for  a  moment,  at  the  internal  evidence  the 
Roll  contains,  we  find  that  this  date  is  within  the  broader 
limits  it  allows.  Baldwin  de  Redvers  is  mentioned,  and 
therefore  the  record  could  not  be  earlier  than  1107,  and 
was  probably  not  prior  to  1112,  seepages  192-3.  -  Assum- 
ing in  another  instance  that  the  name  Robert  Maleductus 
represents  Robert  Malconduit,  who  was  drowned  in  the 


460  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

White  Ship,  1120  would  be  the  later  limit  of  date;  but 
as  Geoffrey  Ridel,  before  whom  the  Inquest  was  made, 
died  in  that  year  (Feudal  England),  further  evidence  is 
unnecessary. 

To  return  to  the  date  of  Henry's  accession.  It  is  difficult 
to  follow  his  object  in  suppressing  the  five  money ers,  as  it 
of  course  meant  a  considerable  loss  to  his  Exchequer,  for 
Winchester  was  a  royal  mint.  Their  names,  as  taken 
from  the  coins  of  Rufus,  were,  probably,  .ZElfgserd,  ^Estan, 
Colbern,  Edric  and  Lifwold,  and  as  none  of  them  appear  to 
have  subsequently  coined  elsewhere,  it  is  possible  that  they 
were  convicted  of  false  coining  and  therefore  punished. 
(Compare  the  contemporary  event  at  Worcester,  page  476.) 
But  this  would  scarcely  account  for  their  offices  remaining 
vacant,  at  so  important  a  city  as  this,  for  so  long  a  period, 
and  therefore  it  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
following  incident,  in  which,  no  doubt,  the  citizens  were 
directly  concerned,  prejudiced  ihe  feelings  of  the  King 
towards  them  from  the  outset,  and  that  he  deliberately 
crippled  the  prestige  of  their  city  until  it  sank  to  be  but 
the  second  in  importance  in  England.  The  facts  remain 
that  London  under  his  encouragement  finally  assumed 
the  foremost  position  and  that  Duke  Robert's  advance 
towards  Winchester  in  1101  seemed  to  point  to  a  well- 
recognised  expectation  of  support  in  that  city. 

1100.  From  the  scene  of  the  death  of  Rufus  "Prince 
Henry  lost  no  time  in  riding  as  fast  as  his  horse  could 
carry  him  to  Winchester,  where  the  royal  treasure 
was  kept,  and  imperiously  demanded  the  keys  from 
the  keepers,  as  the  lawful  heir.  William  de  Breteuil 
arrived  at  the  same  instant  with  breathless  haste,  for 
he  anticipated  Henry's  deep  policy  and  resolved  to 
oppose  it  [in  favour  of  Duke  Robert].  .  .  .  There 
was  now  a  sharp  contention  between  them  and  crowds 
flocked  round  them  from  all  quarters  ;  but  the  influence 


A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      461 

of  an  heir  present  in  person  to  claim  his  rights  began 
to  prevail.  Henry,  hastily  seizing  his  sword,  drew 
it  ...  but  the  quarrel  abated  on  one  side  and 
the  other  and,  by  a  wise  resolution  to  prevent  a  serious 
rupture,  the  castle  with  the  royal  treasures  was 
given  up  to  Henry."  (Mr.  Forester's  Orderic.) 

As  a  royal  mint  we  should  expect  a  complete  sequence 
of  Henry's  types  at  Winchester,  but  the  absence  of  type 
264  has  already  been  disclosed  and  only  two  others  are 
missing.  The  first  of  these  is  254  (1102-1104)  and  as 
the  Annals  of  Winchester  record  that  in  1102  "  Win- 
chester was  burnt,"  and  Huding  adds  that  "  the  fire  broke 
out  in  the  centre  of  the  city  and  destroyed  the  royal 
palace,  the  mint,  &c.,  and  a  great  proportion  of  the 
inhabitants'  houses,"  we  can  well  understand  why  the 
coinage  was  temporarily  discontinued.  The  second  miss- 
ing type  is  258  (1123-1125,  Christmas),  and  is  that  which 
caused  the  great  Inquisition  of  the  Moneyers  at  Win- 
chester, at  Christmas,  1125.  Ruding,  quoting  the  Annals 
of  Winchester,  tells  us  that  all  the  moneyers  [of  England] 
were  found  guilty  of  the  frauds  imputed  to  them  except 
three  persons  of  that  profession  in  this  city  "  [Winchester], 
and,  upon  the  authority  of  the  History  of  Winchester, 
that,  "  to  the  above  mentioned  artists  of  Winchester  was 
therefore  committed  the  charge  of  making  a  new  coinage 
to  supply  the  whole  kingdom."  (See  ante,  pages  80-81.) 
But,  unfortunately,  the  Annals  of  Winchester  say  nothing 
of  the  kind.  What  they  do  say  is  "  All  the  moneyers 
of  the  kingdom  except  three  were  mutilated  at  Win- 
chester," which  is  a  very  different  story.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  absence  in  Normandy  of  the  King  and  of 
nearly  all  the  grantees  of  the  chartered  mints,  it  is  probable 
that  all  the  moneyers  of  the  kingdom  who  were  coining 
in  type  258  did  not  represent  more  than  a  dozen  mints. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


462  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

Moreover  there  was  then  only  a  single  moneyer  in  office  at 
Winchester  and  if  ever  a  coin  of  type  258  is  forthcoming 
we  may  almost  expect  to  find  Odo's  name  upon  it  and  the 
Inquisition  would  account  for  his  final  disappearance. 
It  is  true  that  there  were  still  living  in  Winchester 
Engelram  and  Saiet  who  had  coined  on  previous  types,  for 
they  survived  the  Inquisition  and  subsequently  coined ; 
but  as  the  moneyer  seems  to  have  been  changed  almost 
yearly,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  missing  Odo  was  in 
office  at  the  time,  and  so  convicted  with  the  majority,  than 
that  Engelram  and  Saiet  were  amongst  the  three  acquitted. 
The  general  calling  in  of  the  base  money  would  account 
for  the  absence  to-day  of  a  Winchester  coin  of  the  type. 

The  Inquisition  caused  a  general  revival  of  coinage 
throughout  the  country,  and  so  Henry  restored  to  Win- 
chester its  six  money ers  in  1126.  Or  at  least  he  materially 
increased  the  number  then,  for  five  names  appear  upon  its 
type  265  (1126-1128)  and  six  upon  262  (1128-1131.) 

This  brings  us  to  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1130  in  which  two 
entries  directly  concern  our  subject.  "  Saiet  the  moneyer 
owes  278  marks  of  silver  upon  a  plea  of  two  dies."  This 
is,  of  course,  the  SAIET  of  the  Inquest  and  of  types  252 
(1106-8),  266  (1114-1116),  263  (1119-1121),  265(1126- 
1128),  and  the  current  type  262  (1128-1131).  His  name 
also  appears  in  the  next  type  255  (1131-1135),  and  in  the 
reign  of  Stephen.  This  latter  fact  suggests  that  the  entry 
cannot  be  the  record  of  a  fine,  for  in  that  case  he  ought  to 
have  lost  his  office,  nor  can  it  represent  the  fee  payable  for 
new  dies,  as  the  fees,  according  to  Domesday,  were  usually 
a  mark  and  a  half.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  the 
assessment  for  the  purchase  of  two  dies,  i.e.,  the  offices  of 
two  additional  moneyers  at  Winchester ;  and,  curiously 
enough,  on  the  next  type,  255  (1131-1135)  the  number  of 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  1.      463 

moneyers  and  therefore  of  dies  is  increased  by  two,  for 
the  number  of  moneyers  is  then  represented  by  nine  names, 
which  doubtless  meant  eight  at  a  time. 

One  of  these  dies  Saiet  appears  to  have  given  to  his 
nephew  Alfric,  for  the  second  item  in  the  1130  Roll  is, 
"  Alfric  the  nephew  of  Saiet  accounts  for  24  marks  of  silver 
for  /also  cypho,  pays  £4,  and  owes  18  marks  of  silver."  This 
passage  evidently  puzzled  the  learned  historian  Freeman, 
for  in  his  copy  he  has  underlined  and  queried  the  word 
cypho.     It  may  be  that,  as  one  of  the  King's  goldsmiths, 
Alfric  had  supplied  a  scyphus,  or  chalice,  light  in  weight, 
or  that  he  had  used  a  false  measure  ;  cyphus  being  some- 
times used  as  a  goblet  of  legal  measure.     Or — but  this  is 
perhaps  scarcely  more  than  conjecture — that  as  a  money er 
he  had  used  a  false  design,  for,  as  explained  in  a  similar 
instance  on  page  335,  the  word  may  be  a  graphical  error 
for  typo  =  a  figure.      It  is  possible  that  he  had  either 
used  an  obsolete  die,   and    issued    what    we    know    as 
a,   "  mule  "    coin,   or  perhaps  that  he  had  anticipated 
his   own   dies  by  using  those  of  his  uncle  Saiet.     But 
this  fact  we  have,  viz.,  that  his  name  now  first  appears 
on  type   262  (1128-1131),   which   is  the  current  type. 
In  view  of  his  relationship  to  Saiet,  and  of  the  general 
custom  amongst  the  moneyers,  as  explained  on  page  29, 
of  retaining  the  office  in  their  own  families,  and  again 
of  the  presumed  purchase  by  Saiet  at  this  date  of  the 
right  to  two  additional  dies,  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt 
that  Alfric,  the  nephew  of  Saiet  of  the  Roll,  was  the  same 
person  as  ALFEIE,  the  moneyer  on  the  current  type.   But 
whatever  his  offence  was,  the  entry  against  him  must 
have  been  more  in  the  nature  of  an  amercement  than  of  a 
fine,  for  his  is,  perhaps,  the  only  instance  in  the  Roll  in 
which,  under  similar  circumstances,  a  moneyer  was  subse- 


464  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

quently  allowed  to  retain  his  office.  That  he  did  so  is 
rendered  almost  certain  by  the  same  name  appearing  on 
the  following  type,  255  (1131-1135). 

At  the  same  time  that  the  right  to  two  additional  dies  was, 
as  contended,  given  to  Saiet,  it  is  probable  that  King 
Henry  granted  to  the  citizens  of  Winchester  a  charter, 
very  similar  in  its  character  to  those  which  he  then  gave 
to  London,  Norwich,  &c.,  for  Henry  II  and  Richard  I,  in 
confirming  it,  used  precisely  the  same  formula,  in  except- 
ing their  moneyers  from  the  privilege  of  refusing  to 
plead  without  the  walls  of  Winchester,  as  they  did  in 
their  similar  charters  to  those  cities.  See  pages  284  and 
333.  This,  as  at  London  and  Norwich,  would  not  only 
account  for  the  increased  number  of  moneyers'  names 
which  we  find  on  the  Winchester  coins  of  type  255  (1131- 
1135),  but  also  for  the  grant  of  the  two  additional  dies  to 
Saiet.  May  we  not,  from  this,  assume  that,  like  Godwin 
Socche  in  the  days  of  the  Confessor,  Saiet,  who  had  held 
office,  intermittently,  for  many  more  years  than  any  of  his 
colleagues,  was  now  the  magister  monetarius,  or  senior 
moneyer,  of  Winchester  ? 

COINS. 
•J.AILPAKD  ON  PINEE  *hENEIEV  255 

Watford  find.     The  moneyer  continued  to  coin 
for  Stephen. 

•J.AILPAKD  ON  PINE  *I\ENRIEVS  255 

Hunterian  Museum ;  Benwell  Sale,  1849. 

^.AILPINE  ON  PINE  .          ^.fiENEIE  :  REX         26S 
F.  E.  Whelan.    As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   KE1GN   OF   HENRr  I.      465 

.  .  .  LPINE  ON  PI  ...          .  IxENRIEVS  REX        262 

Watford  find.  As  to  the  obverse  legend,  see 
the  London  coin  of  RAPVLF  of  this  type, 
p.  306. 


ON  PINEE  .frtiENEI  .  BE         252 


Spink   and   Son.      As  to  this  moneyer,   see 
before. 


*AINVLF  ON  PINEE  *I\ENRI  BEX        252 

Spink  and  Son. 


.   .NPI..E:  *Ii..RIREX       252 

L.  A.  Lawrence.     20  grs. 

*  ____  LF  :  ON  :  PINEES  .  IiENRI  .  .  .  R  :      265 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton  ;  S.  Smith;  Sale, 
January,  1860.  This  moneyer  was  probably 
eon  of  the  above.  Or,  perhaps,  the  letters 
stand  for  VLF. 

*.         .  F  ON  PIN  ^.hENRIEVS          255 

Benwell  Sale,  1849. 

*ALFR[I]E  ON  PIN  *hENRIEVS  R       262 

J.  Verity.    As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 

*AL  .  .  .  .  ON  PIN  *hENRIEVS  R      262 

Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  II.,  8.  The  en- 
graver has  misread  the  moneyer  s  name 
as  ALEN.  See  page  117. 


466  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

•J.ALFEIEVS  .  .  PINE  .frhENEIE  .  .  255 

Watford  find  ;  P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton. 

•frALFBIEVS  :  ON  :  PIN  *I\ENEIEV  :  255 

British  Museum  ;  Royal  Mint  collection,  from 
a  reading  supplied  by  Mr.  Hocking. 

.J.ALFEIE  :  ON  :  PINEE  i  *hENEIEVS  :        255 

Watford  find  ;  British  Museum  ;  Peace  Sale, 
1894,  corrected  ;  Spink  and  Son. 


PINEES  *hEN...YS          255, 

Royal  Mint  collection,  per  Mr.  Hocking, 

•frALFEIE  ON  PINEE  .frlxENEIEVS  255, 

Lincoln  and  Son  ;  A.  H.  Sadd. 

*ALFEIE  ON  PIN  ^IxENEIEVS  :         255 

British  Museum  ;  Benwell  Sale,  1849. 

•frALPOLD  :  ON  :  EINE  ifhENEIEV  :  255 

British  Museum.  This  moneyer  continued  to 
coin  for  Stephen.  Compare  the  E  for  P  in 
EINE  with  the  P  in  PIMVNT  on  PI.  III. 
No.  4,  where  the  base  line  of  the  I  gives  an 
appearance  of  E  to  the  P,  and  which 
accounts  for  the  name  having  often  been 
read  EIMVNT. 

•*E[NGE]LEAM  :  ON  P  :         *I\eNEIEVS  EG        IV 
S.  Page.     As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 


A  NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      467 

.frENGELEAM  ON  PIN  265 

DurrantSale,  1847,  £3  Is.;  Bergne  Sale,  1878, 
£3  ;  Wakeford  Sale,  1879,  £4. 

^E[NSELEAM]  ON  :  PIN  •:•        .hENE  .....     262 

Watford  find.  This  moneyer's  name  is  assumed 
from  the  length  of  space.  As  to  the  orna- 
ment of  pellets,  see  page  91,  and  a  similar 
instance  below  under  LEFPINE. 

•frGODPINE  ON  PINE  .frHNEI  E  ANG      251 

J.  Eashleigh.  From  the  Martin  Sale,  1859, 
£8  3s.  Engraved,  Olla  Podrida,  page  44. 
As  to  this  moneyer,  see  before. 


.&60DPINE  O:NPIM  ^RENEI  EEX      253 

Sir  John  Evans.    PI.  II.,  No.  13. 

*60DPINE  :   OIPDCE  :  *I\ElsRIE  EEX       257 

Hunterian  Museum.   PI.  III.,  No.  9.  Obverse, 
three  annulets  on  the  drapery  of  the  breast. 

.  ON  .  PITCEE  :      .frhENEIEVS  EEX  267 
Sir  John  Evans.    PL  IV.,  No.  3. 


ON  PINEE  267 

Bari  find. 


*60TPINE  :  ON  :  PINEE  .         *IxENEIE  EEX     266 

Spink  and  Son,  20  grs.  From  the  Warne, 
1889,  and  Montagu,  1896,  £4  10s.  Sales. 
Mr.  F.  Spicer  has  a  rubbing  of  a  brass 


468  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

fibula,  said  to  have  been  found  in  tbe  City  of 
London,  which  is  an  exact  representation  of 
this  reverse,  both  as  to  type  and  legend, 
including,  in  the  latter,  even  the  colons  of 
division  and  the  T  instead  of  D,  save  that 
the  last  five  letters  are  GLOEE  for  Glouces- 
ter. 


•frGODPINE  ON  PINE  ^IiENEIEVS  255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens  ;  Lincoln  and  Son. 

•frGODPira  ON  PIN  :  *I\ 255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens ;  Royal  Mint  collec- 
tion. 

.  PIG  :  ON  :  PINE  :  AIxENEIE  :  255 


Watford  find.  This  moneyer  continued  to 
coin  for  Stephen  as  PIPING,  KIPIN6  and 
EhEPIG,  see  before. 


:  ON  PINEES  265 

Spink  and  Son. 


•J.LEFPINE  ON  PINEE :  -frlxENEIEVS  262 

Watford  find. 

•frLEFPINE  ON  :  PIN  •:•  *I\ENEIEVS  :        262 

Watford  find.     As  to  the  ornament  of  pellets, 
see  page  91,  and  a  coin  of  ENGELEAM. 

^.SAIET  ON  PINEEST  *hEN .  .    EEX         252 

University  Library,   Cambridge.     As  to   this 
moneyer,  see  before. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      469 
*SAIET  ON  P  .  .  E  .  *hENRI  RE  252 

Sir  John  Evans.  22  grs.  The  coin  mentioned 
on  page  55. 

*SAET    ..    .INEE  *hEN 252 

F.  E.  Whelan. 

*SA  .  .  .  ON  PINEE  :  *I\ENRI  REX        252 

Capt.  K.  J.  H.  Douglas.     PI.  IV.,  No.  3. 

.frSAIET  ON  PINEESTR  *I\ENRI  REX        266 

Engraved,  Withy  and  Ryall,  II.,  4  ;  Snelling, 
I.,  16,  and  Kuding,  Sup.  I.,  13.  Obi-er»e, 
two  stars  in  the  field  and  the  third  at  the  end 
of  the  legend.  The  legend  is  corrected  from 
.J.  SAIN  ON  PINTRSIR,  and  a  pellet  repre- 
sents the  third  star  on  the  obverse  as  en- 
graved. As  to  this  coin,  see  page  67. 

•frSAIET  :  ON  :  PINEESTRE      .frhENRI  :  RE          263 

J.  S.  Henderson.  PI.  V.,  No.  1.  From  the 
Webb  Sale,  1894,  £7  5s.  and,  probably,  the 
Wylie  Sale,  1882,  £11. 

.J.SAIED  :  ON  .    PINEES  :  *I\ENRIEVS  :  R    265 

British  Museum. 

*SA  .  .  .   .  N  PIN  .  *hENRIE  .  . .        262 

Lincoln  and  Son. 

*SAIET  ON  P1NEEST  ^hENRIEVS:         255 

British  Museum  ;  Sheriff  Mackenzie. 

VOL.    I-    FOURTH    SERIES.  "  P 


470  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

•frSAIET  ON  PINEES  *I\ENEIEVS 

Watford  find,  7  specimens. 

*..  .ET  ON  PINE 
Battle  find. 

*SAIE  .    .  .    .  IN  : 

Sir  John  Evans. 


[*SA]IETTVS  :  ON  .  . 
J.  Verity. 

[*SIP]AEN  :  ON  PIN 


EN  .  .  EV. 


255 


255 


255 


255 


ENEIEVS  E  :      255 


British  Museum.     Compare  the  next  coin,  but 
the  moneyer  may  be  WAEN. 


*SIPAED  ON  ... 


. .  NBIEVS 


255 


Watford  find.  SIPAED  coined  here  for  Stephen 
and  is  mentioned  as  a  moneyer  in  the  Win- 
ton  Domesday  of  1148. 

[  *  STIE]FNE  :  ON  :  PI .  .  255 

Royal  Mint  collection.  Stephen  continued  to 
coin  here  in  the  following  reign. 

*.T[OVI :  ON]  PINEES  :  .  hENEIEVS  :         255 

F.  Spicer.     From  the  Montagu  Sale,  1897. 

*[T]OVI  ON  PINEES  *hEN 255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens. 

•frVLFPINE  ON  PINE  267 

Bari  find.  But  the  reading  is  queried  by  Sir 
John  Evans  in  his  account  of  the  hoard. 


A   NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      471 

*PIMYND  ON  PIN:  .frHNEI  EEX  N       251 

P.  W.  P.  Carlyon-Britton.  As  to  this  money er, 
see  before,  also  under  the  coin  reading 
.frALPOLD  :  ON  :  EINE,  above. 


.frPIMVNT  :  ON  :  PIN  *I\ENEI  EEX        256 

British  Museum.  PI.  III.,  No.  4,  and  Fig.  F, 
page  56.  From  the  Cuff,  1854,  £4  4s., 
Murchison,  1864,  £4 10s.,  Whitbourn,  1869, 
£2  7s.,  Brice  and  Montagu,  1896,  £5,  collec- 
tions. 

*[PIM]VINT  :  ON  PINE  .  . .  NEIE  EEX      267 

Sir  John  Evans.  PL  IV.,  No.  4.  Variety  C, 
page  64. 

•i«[PIMV]NT  ON  .  .NE  262 

Watford  find. 

*PIM[V]N[T  ON]  PINEE         .  I\ENE 255 

British  Museum. 

•J.PIM PIN  .  RENE 255 

Watford  find. 

*.  ANDVS  :  ON  :  PIEES  :          *hENEIEVS          265 
British  Museum. 

* :  ON:  PINE  IEVS  262 

W.  C.  Boyd.    From  the  Milford  Haven  find. 

Tyssen  Sale,  1802  265 

262 

Tyssen,  Hoare,  1850;  Pershouse,  1862   Harrison,    255 
1865,  Brown,  1869,  etc.,  etc.,  Sales. 


472 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


WORCESTER. 

WlHRACE  ASTER,       WlHEKCE  ASTER,       WlGERCEASTER,        WlGORNA- 
CEASTER,      WlGORNIA,      GlJIGRESTENSIS  J      Domesday,      WlRE- 

CESTER  ;  Pipe  Roll,  WIREC'  and  WIGREC'. 

"  The  faithful  city  of  Worcester,"  as  a  glance  at  the 
rectangular  formation  of  its  streets  will  to-day  remind  us, 
was  once  an  important  station  of  Roman  England.  It 
probably  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Saxons  with  Glouces- 
ter, Cirencester,  and  Bath,  in  577,  and  in  679  its  See  was 
founded.  A  charter  of  Ethelfleda  tells  us  that  the  burg 
was  to  be  fortified  against  the  Danes,  and  a  third  of  the 
royal  dues  and  market  tolls  to  be  devoted  to  the  Church. 
In  1041  King  Harthacnut  ravaged  and  burnt  the  city, 
because  two  of  his  collectors  of  the  Danegeld  had  been 
slain  "  in  an  upper  chamber  of  the  abbey  tower,  where 
they  had  concealed  themselves  during  a  tumult." 
(Florence.)  The  fire  probably  destroyed  the  early  monas- 
tery, for  in  1058  Bishop  Aldred  dedicated  to  St.  Peter 
"  the  church  which  he  had  built  from  its  foundations  in 
the  city  of  Worcester." 

1086.  Domesday  notes. — "  In  the  city  of  Worcester 
King  Edward  had  this  custom.  When  the  money 
was  changed  [i.e.  a  new  type  issued]  each  moneyer 
gave  twenty  shillings  to  London  for  receiving  the 
[new]  money  dies."  The  King  had  £10  from  the 
city  and  Earl  Edwin  £8.  The  King  received  no 
other  custom  save  the  usual  house-tax. 

Now  the  King  has  in  lordship  both  the  King's  share 
and  that  of  the  Earl,  which  return  to  the  Sheriff  £28  5s. 
by  weight.  From  the  city  and  the  King's  manors 
£123  4s.  is  paid.  "  In  the  time  of  King  Edward  the 
Bishop  had  the  tertins  denarius  from  the  burg  of 
Worcester,  and  now  he  has  it  [jointly]  with  the 
King  and  Earl.  Then  it  was  £6.  Now  it  is  £8." 

1108.  Death  of  Urso  d'Abetot,  castellan  of  Worcester. 
(Geof.  de  Hand.) 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  1.      473 

1112.  May  9th.     Death  of  Samson,  Bishop  of  Worcester, 
1096-1112. 

1113.  June   19th.      "The  city   of  Worcester,   together 
with  the  cathedral  and  all  the  other  churches,  and 
also  the  castle,  were  destroyed  by  fire."     (Florence.) 

Dec.  28th.      Theowulf,  the   King's   chaplain,  ap- 
pointed bishop. 

1115.     June  27th.     Is  consecrated. 
1123.     Oct.  20th.     His  death. 

1125.  Simon,  the  Queen's  chancellor,  appointed  bishop 
in  Normandy. 

May  25th.     Consecrated  at  Canterbury. 

1129.  Christmas.       King  Henry    holds    his    Court    at 
Worcester.      (Huntingdon.)     Hoveden,   erroneously, 
gives  this  date  as  1181. 

1130.  Pipe  Boll  notes. — From  the  Roll,  as  we  have  it, 
the  returns  for  this  county  are  missing,  and  there  are 
therefore  only  incidental  references  to  the  city  under 
other  headings.     One  of  these  enters  certain  expenses 
which   were    probably    incurred    at    the    Christmas 
Court  of  1129.     Walter  de  Beauchamp  [castellan  of 
Worcester   and  hereditary   Sheriff  of  the  shire]    is 
often  mentioned. 

1133.  "In  the  month  of  November  the  city  of  Worcester 
was  exposed  to  the  ravages  of  fire,  a  frequent  occur- 
rence." (Florence.) 

The  mint  of  Worcester  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the 
many  established  by  Ethelred  II  to  facilitate  the  collec- 
tion of  the  Danegeld  in  coin,  and  was  continued  by  all  his 
successors  until  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  or  perhaps  a  little 
later. 

A  study  of  Domesday  tells  us  that  although  each 
moneyer  of  Worcester  in  the  reign  of  the  Confessor  paid  20s. 
to  London,  i.e.  to  the  King's  aurifaber,  for  his  dies  whenever 
a  new  type  was  issued,  it  was  one  of  the  customs  by  which 
the  citizens  held  their  city,  and,  therefore,  by  inference, 
as  they  were  responsible  for  such  payment,  the  mint  must 
have  been  farmed  to  them.  Under  the  current  year  of 
the  Survey,  1086,  however,  there  is  no  reference  to  the 


474  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

continuance  of  this  custom,  but  it  will  be  noticed,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  the  firma  paid  to  the  King  and  Earl, 
which  had  been  £18  in  the  Confessor's  time,  is  now 
raised  to  £23  5s.  by  weight.  Of  this  increase  of  £5  5s., 
the  King's  proportionate  share  would  be  £2  18s.  4d.  by 
weight,  or,  say,  £3  by  number,  and  from  that  again  had 
to  be  deducted  the  third  penny  of  the  Bishop,  which 
would  leave  a  net  increase  of  £2  a  year  to  the  King — as 
such,  although,  the  earldom  being  then  extinct,  he  actually 
received  not  only  his  own  share,  but  also  that  of  the 
Earl.  Now,  turning  to  the  coins  of  William  I,  we  find 
that  there  were  four  moneyers  at  Worcester  at  the  date  of 
Domesday,  and,  as  it  was  then  customary  to  "  change  the 
money "  every  two  years,  this  annual  increase  of  £2 
exactly  corresponds  with  the  surrender  value  of  the  20s. 
from  each  of  the  four  moneyers  when  a  new  type  was 
issued. 

This  may  be  a  mere  coincidence,  and  it  is  not  proffered 
at  much  more  than  that,  but  the  fact  remains  that  in 
1086  the  moneyers'  custom  is  no  longer  recorded  in  the 
Survey  as  being  then  in  existence,  and  therefore  we  may 
assume  that  the  mint  was  farmed  to  the  citizens,  as  were 
so  many  royal  mints,  in  the  firma  of  their  city.  The 
writ  of  Henry  I,  presently  recorded,  too,  corroborates  this 
inference.  The  mint  cannot  have  followed  the  tertius 
denarius  of  Worcester,  for  it  was  evidently  a  royal  mint, 
although  farmed  to  the  citizens  by  custom,  in  the  time  of 
the  Confessor,  when  the  same  conditions  prevailed. 
Originally,  the  Earl  probably  received  the  tertius  denarius 
of  the  city,  although  at  the  death  of  the  Confessor  it  was 
represented  by  £8,  instead  of  £6,  out  of  the  firma — or 
what  was  the  precursor  of  the  firma — of  £18,  and  the 
King  and  he  seem  to  have  jointly  created  a  second  tertius 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN   OF  HENRY  I.      475 

denarius,  and  granted  it  to  the  Bishop.  Here,  again,  the 
annual  value  of  the  mint,  at  £2  as  above,  steps  in,  for  if, 
instead  of  the  usual  transfer  of  the  mint,  the  Earl  received 
its  annual  value  because  it  was  retained  by  the  King,  we 
have  the  explanation  why,  in  the  division  of  the  original 
tertim  denarius,  the  Earl  received  exactly  £2  more  than 
his  share,  and  the  King  so  much  the  less. 

Passing  on  to  the  accession  of  Henry  I,  we  approach  a 
remarkable  writ  concerning  the  coinage  of  Worcester- 
shire, which  Ruding  (vol.  i.,  p.  164)  assigns  to  the  year 
1118,  "  or  possibly  a  little  earlier."  But  so  late  a  date  as 
this  is  out  of  the  question,  for  it  is  addressed  to  Samson, 
Bishop  of  Worcester,  and  Urso  d'Abetot,  the  sheriff,  of 
whom  the  former  died  in  1112,  and  the  latter  as  early  as 
in  1108.  Ruding  quotes  it  from  an  extract  made  by 
Mr.  G.  North  from  Lib.  Rub.  Scacc.,  fol.  163b,  but  the 
names  of  the  witnesses  are  omitted,  and  so  the  usual 
means  of  closely  approximating  the  date  are  absent.  But 
it  bears  internal  evidence  of  being  earlier  than  Christ- 
mas, 1103,  for  at  the  Council  of  London  held  on  that 
occasion,  the  punishment  for  falsifying  the  money,  which, 
up  to  that  date,  had  been  that  described  in  the  writ,  was 
increased  by  the  addition  of  loss  of  sight.  Finally,  if 
we  compare  its  wording  with  that  of  the  passage  quoted 
on  page  45  from  Henry's  Coronation  Charter  of  1100, 
the  two  documents  would  seem  to  be  contemporary. 
Its  date,  therefore,  may  be  accepted  as  immediately 
after  the  King's  accession.  The  following  is  a  slightly 
modernised  version : — 

"  [Henry,  King  of  England]  to  Samson,  Bishop  of  Worcester, 
Urso  d'Abetot,  and  all  his  barons,  both  Norman  and  English 
in  Worcestershire,  commanded  that  all  burgesses,  and  all  other 
persons  dwelling  in  burgs,  as  well  Norman  as  English,  should 


476 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


swear  to  preserve  and  uphold  the  King's  money  in  England, 
and  not  to  debase  it.  And  .if  anyone  should  be  found  with 
false  money  upon  him,  and  should  not  be  able  to  clear  himself 
from  the  charge  of  falsifying  it,  or  to  prove  from  whom  he 
received  the  false  coins,  he  should  suffer  the  loss  of  his  right 
hand  and  mutilation.  Also  that  no  moneyer  should  exchange 
money,  except  in  his  own  county,  and  that  in  the  presence  of 
two  credible  witnesses  of  the  same  county ;  and  if  he  should 
be  taken  exchanging  money  in  any  other  county,  he  should  be 
punished  as  a  false  moneyer.  Likewise  that  no  person,  except 
he  were  a  moneyer,  should  presume  to  exchange  money." 

So  drastic  a  writ  was  not  sent  down  from  the  King's 
Court  for  nothing,  and  as  that  of  Worcester  was  the  only 
mint  in  the  county,  it  proves  that  the  moneyers  must 
have  been  not  only  debasing  the  coinage,  but  holding  the 
exchange  outside  their  jurisdiction.  The  latter  charge 
suggests  a  possible  explanation  for  the  remarkable  coin- 
cidence that  after  the  first  two  types  of  William  I, 
Worcester  and  Bristol  issue  exactly  the  same  types 
throughout  the  reigns  of  the  two  Williams.  No  doubt 
Bristol  was  then  rapidly  coming  to  the  front  as  a  mari- 
time trade  centre,  and  perhaps  the  moneyers  of  Worcester 
found  it  more  profitable  to  resort  to  its  market  than  to 
await  the  slow  demand  for  exchange  in  their  inland  city. 
Something  of  the  kind,  perhaps,  also  led  to  the  contem- 
porary abolition  of  the  five  moneyers  in  the  market  at 
Winchester  (page  460). 

The  immediate  effect  of  the  writ  would  be  that  in,  or 
about,  1100  Urso  d'Abetot,  as  Sheriff,  would  hold  an 
Inquisition  of  the  moneyers  at  Worcester.  Their  names 
at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Rufus  were  BALDEIE, 
EASTALZEB,  60DPINE  and  SEPINE,  and  as  they  cannot  be 
identified  on  any  of  the  coins  of  King  Henry,  there  seems 
little  doubt  that  they  were  convicted  of  the  offences 
specified  in  the  writ  and  so  disappeared  from  office.  But 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      477 

the  verdict  of  the  Inquisition  would,  it  is  submitted,  be 
more  serious  even  than  this,  for  it  is  evident  that  the 
affairs  of  the  mint  had  come  io  such  a  pass  that  in 
its  particular  case  the  King  had  resorted  to  a  remedy, 
as  evidenced  by  his  writ,  for  which  we  have  to  look  to 
the  great  Inquisition  of  the  money ers  of  the  whole  of  the 
country,  in  1125,  to  find  a  parallel.  Therefore  the  coin- 
cidence of  the  absence,  to-day,  of  any  coins  bearing  the 
name  of  Worcester  of  those  types  which  represent  the 
first  twenty  years  of  Henry's  reign,  points  to  the  pro- 
bability that  the  mint  itself  was  disfranchised  for  that 
period ;  or,  to  adapt  the  wording  of  the  record  in  the 
Winton  Domesday  of  the  similar  and  contemporary  inci- 
dent at  Winchester,  that  "  in  the  market  there  had  been 
four  money  ers,  who  were  abolished  by  order  of  the  King." 
The  death  of  Prince  William,  the  King's  only  son, 
in  the  shipwreck  of  1120,  as  Mr.  Round  remarks,  brought 
Robert  fitz-Regis,  as  the  favourite  and  eldest  of  the 
King's  natural  issue,  within  the  possibilities  of  the  succes- 
sion, for  the  bar  sinister  was  no  estoppel  under  the 
Norman  Constitutional  law.  This  led  to  momentous 
results  in  the  Western  Counties,  for  at  Easter,  1121,  Henry 
held  his  court  at  Berkeley,  and,  as  deduced  on  page  125, 
created  Robert  Earl  of  Gloucester,  and,  as  such,  Lord 
Paramount  of  the  West.  At  this  court  the  citizens  of 
Worcester  probably  petitioned  for  and  obtained  the 
restoration  of  their  ancient  privilege,  although  it  appears 
to  have  been  now  limited  to  one  moneyer  only  at  a  time, 
for  the  mint  is  reopened  and  type  IV  (1121-1123)  appears. 
This  is  followed  by  types  265  (1126-1128)  and  262  (1128- 
1131),  but  the  last  type  of  the  reign,  255,  is  as  yet 
missing,  and  as  the  Pipe  Roll  returns  for  Worcester  are 
wanting,  no  explanation  of  its  absence  is  forthcoming. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


478 


NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 


COINS. 
•frGODEIE  :  O  .   PIEEEES 


.  .  EIEVS  E  :      265 


British  Museum.  From  the  Durrant,  1847, 
£2  10s.,  and,  probably,  the  Tyssen,  1802, 
Sales.  This  moneyer  coined  here  in  the 
following  reign. 


•frPVLFEIE  :  ON  PIEE         ^IxENEIEVS  EEX  :      IV 

British  Museum.  PI.  V.,  No.  7.  From  the 
Cuff  Sale,  1854,  and  sketched  by  him  in  his, 
now  Mr.  Webster's,  copy  of  Ruding. 


OPV]LFEI[E  :  O]N  :  PIEEE  .  KENE EX  262 

The  Victoria  Institute,  Worcester.  Lent  by 
the  Committee  of  the  Corporation.  The 
moneyer  Wulfric  continued  to  coin  in  the 
following  reign  ;  but  it  is  not  quite  certain 
that  the  letters  on  this  coin  do  not  repre- 
sent PALTEE. 


YORK. 

EOFERWIC,  EVEBWIC,  EBOBAciA-CiviTAS,  EwBEHic ;  Domesday, 
EBOBACUM  ;  Pipe  Roll,  EVEBWIC. 

The  city  of  York  discloses  vestiges  of  architecture  of 
every  age  in  the  history  of  Britain.  The  Romans  found 
it,  even  then,  an  ancient  city,  and  chose  it  as  their  strong- 
hold in  the  North,  where  Hadrian  flourished,  and  Severus 
and  Constantius  Chlorus  died.  Upon  the  exodus  of  the 
legions,  York  was  occupied  by  the  Picts  and  Scots  until 
wrested  from  them  by  the  Saxon  invaders.  In  the  seventh 
century  was  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Church  of  St. 
Peter,  and  with  it  that  of  the  great  archbishopric.  The 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      479 

city  at  an  early  date  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Danes  and 
became  the  seat  of  government  of  the  Kings  of  North- 
umbria  of  that  race ;  but  under  their  rule  it  prospered,  and 
at  the  close  of  the  Saxon  era  it  was  the  flourishing  and 
populous  metropolis  of  the  North.  In  the  troubles  follow- 
ing the  Conquest  York  suffered  more  severely  than  any 
city  in  England,  for  it  was  devastated  by  fire  and  sword 
until  it  was  left  an  almost  depopulated  waste  of  ashes. 

1086.  Domesday  notes.— In  the  city  of  York  in  the 
time  of  King  Edward,  in  addition  to  the  ward  of  the 
Archbishop  there  were  six  wards ;  one  of  these  was 
absorbed  in  the  castle.  In  the  remaining  five  there 
v/ere  -1,418  inhabited  houses.  From  one  of  these 
•wards  the  Archbishop  had  the  third  part,  and  all 
the  customs  from  his  own  ward.  The  city  was  then 
assessed  to  the  King  at  £53  by  weight. 

Of  the  above-mentioned  houses  there  are  now  in 
the  King's  hand,  returning  custom,  391  of  all  sorts 
and  400  uninhabited,  some  returning  more  and  others 
less  than  one  penny,  540  are  waste,  returning  nothing, 
and  145  are  tenanted  by  Normans.  The  holdings  of 
various  feudatories  are  given,  including  "  Nigel  de 
Monnevile  has  one  house  of  a  certain  moneyer,"  and 
the  city  fosse  is  mentioned.  The  city  is  [?  nominally] 
assessed  to  the  King  at  £100  by  weight. 

In  the  Archbishop's  ward  there  were  in  King 
Edward's  time  189  houses,  now  there  are  100,  great 
and  small,  in  addition  to  the  Archbishop's  court  and 
the  "houses  of  the  canons."  In  his  ward  the  Arch- 
bishop has  as  much  as  the  King  has  in  his  wards. 
1100.  November  18th.  Thomas,  Archbishop  of  York, 
dies.  (Florence.) 

He  is  succeeded  by  Gerard,  Bishop  of  Hereford. 

1108.  Archbishop  Gerard  dies  "  before  Pentecost." 
Thomas,  provost  of  Beverley,  is  appointed  Arch- 
bishop.    (S.  of  Durham.) 

1109.  June   27th.     Is  consecrated  at  London.     (S.  of 
Durham.) 

1114.     February  24th.     His  death.     (S.  of  Durham.) 

August  15th.     Thurstan,  the  King's  Chaplain,  is 
appointed  Archbishop.     (S.  of  Durham.) 


480  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

1115.  The  dispute  arises,  on  the  question  of  Thurstan's 
consecration,   as    to  the   supremacy  of  the  See   of 
Canterbury. 

1116.  Thurstan  refuses  to  accept  consecration  if  coupled 
with  subjection  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
accompanies  Henry  to  Normandy.     (S.  of  Durham.) 

1117.  Thence  he  visits  the  Pope  and  returns  to  York. 
(Annals  of  Winchester.) 

1119.     October  20th.     He  attends  the  Council  at  Rheims 

and  is  consecrated  by  the  Pope.     (S.  of  Durham.) 
King  Henry  prohibits  his  return  to  England.     (S. 

of  Durham.) 
1122-23.     Under  pressure  from  the  Pope  Henry  reluctantly 

revokes  his  banishment. 
1122.     December  6th.     The  King,  "who  was  then  taking 

a  survey  of  Northumbria,"  visits  York.     (Orderic.) 
1128.     Thurstan    visits    Eome    and,   returning,   remains 

with  the  King  in  Normandy.     (Florence.) 

1125.  Again  visits  Rome.     (Huntingdon.) 

1126.  Christmas.     Thurstan,    as   the  elder   Archbishop, 
attempts  to  take  precedence   of  the  Archbishop   of 
Canterbury  at  the   Windsor  Court,  but  is  rebuffed. 
(Westminster.) 

1130.  Pipe  Roll  notes.  —  The  burgesses  account  for 
£24  13s.  4d.  on  a  plea  of  Geoffrey  de  Clinton ;  and 
Turgis  the  Collector  for  £40  for  the  current  year  and 
for  £5  6s.  8d.  for  arrears  of  the  previous  year  as 
anxilium  of  the  city.  Thurstan  the  Archbishop 
accounts  for  £10  which  the  King  guaranteed  for  him 
in  Normandy,  but  it  is  remitted  to  him ;  for  10 
marks  for  his  lordship  and  for  25  marks  for  his 
vassals,  which,  with  the  exception  of  10  marks  of  the 
latter  item,  are  also  remitted  to  him.  Serlo  de 
Burg  owes  £26  7s.  3d.  as  arrears  "  from  the  returns 
of  the  Archbishopric  of  York,  whilst  it  was  in  his 
hand."  "  Thomas  fitz  Ulviet  of  York  owes  one 
fugat,"  that  he  might  be  an  Alderman  in  the  Guild  of 
Merchants  at  York. 

The  identification  by  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill,  in  N.  C.  1897, 
293,  of  a  coin  of  Cartimandua,  Queen  of  the  Brigantes, 
A.D.  51-71,  raises  the  probability  that  there  was  an  early 
British  coinage  at  York  prior  to  its  occupation  by  the 
Romans.  Whether  the  latter  people  coined  here  is  un- 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      481 

certain,  but  there  is  ground  for  an  affirmative  supposition, 
and  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  our 
earliest  Anglo-Saxon  sceattce  were  issued  from  the  York 
mint.  But  the  coins  of  Archbishop  Ecgberht,  730-766, 
and  of  his  successors  not  only  dispel  any  further  doubts 
as  to  appropriations,  but  prove  that  already  the  regal 
privilege  of  coinage  was  shared  by  the  ecclesiastical 
authority  at  York.  The  silver  sceatta  of  Northumbria 
was  gradually  degraded  into  the  copper  styca,  coined  at 
York  in  the  ninth  century,  and  that  was  superseded  by  the 
Danish  silver  penny  and  halfpenny  in  the  reign  of  Alfred, 
which  half-a-century  later  gave  place  to  the  uniform 
Anglo-Saxon  coinage.  Meanwhile  the  Archbishops  had 
ceased  to  issue  a  distinct  coinage,  bearing  their  own  names 
and  title,  but,  as  at  Canterbury,  they  still  held  their  own 
moneyers  in  the  royal  mint. 

Such  were  the  general  conditions  of  the  mint  at  York 
at  the  time  "  when  King  William  came  into  England." 
But  then  a  sequence  of  terrible  calamities  befell  the  city. 
Not  content  with  having  held  out  until  but  Chester 
remained  a  Saxon  stronghold,  the  stubborn  citizens  rose 
again  against  the  Norman  yoke  and  were  again  subdued, 
this  time  by  fire  and  sword ;  and  yet  a  third  time  the 
remaining  inhabitants  fought  for  their  freedom,  and, 
joining  the  Northern  revolt,  slaughtered  the  King's 
garrison.  William  swore  vengeance  upon  them,  and  ruth- 
lessly devastated  the  whole  of  the  country  between  the 
Humber  and  the  Tees. 

Then  it  was  that  the  city  would  be  disfranchised  of  all 
its  privileges,  and  from  the  time  when  the  King  wreaked 
his  final  vengeance  upon  it  the  royal  mint  was  withdrawn 
and  so  no  return  is  forthcoming  from  it  in  the  Domesday 
Survey.  But  powerful  as  King  William  was,  he  was  not 


482  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

powerful  enough  to  curtail  a  privilege  of  the  Archbishops 
of  York,  and  so  even  under  the  miserable  conditions  to 
which  the  city  was  reduced  at  the  date  of  the  Survey  we 
find  the  incidental  reference  in  it  to  "  a  certain  moneyer." 

That  he  was  one  of  the  three  moneyers  of  the  Arch- 
bishops of  York  seems  to  be  clear  from  a  writ  of  quo 
tvatranto  in  the  eighth  year  of  Edward  I,  which  admits 
that  prior  to  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  the  Archbishops  used 
three  dies  at  York.  Therefore,  as,  subsequent  to  the  date 
of  the  final  calamity,  the  York  coinage,  as  we  have  it,  will 
(after  allowing  for  occasional  changes  during  the  currency 
of  the  types)  only  admit  of  three  moneyers  at  any  time 
during  the  reign  of  the  two  Williams,  and,  as  shown  by 
the  writ,  these  three  belonged  to  the  Archbishop,  it 
follows,  as  was  to  be  expected,  that  King  William  with- 
drew the  privilege  of  a  royal  mint  from  York. 

But  the  writ  implies  that  in  the  time  of  Henry  I  the 
number  of  the  Archbishop's  moneyers  had  been  reduced 
to  two.  Judging  from  our  coins  this  seems  to  have 
occurred  during  the  reign  of  William  II,  and  was  probably 
owing  to  the  fact  that  two  moneyers  were  found  to  be 
ample  to  supply  the  wants  of  a  city  which,  in  the  King's 
demesne  alone,  had  been  reduced  from  1,418  to  536 
inhabited  houses. 

Upon  King  Henry's  accession,  in  the  year  1100,  the 
privilege  of  coinage  at  York  was  therefore  solely  in  the 
Archbishop  by  custom,  and  was  limited  to  that  of  two 
moneyers.  Thomas  of  Bayeux  was  the  then  Primate,  but 
as  he  died  within  four  months  of  that  event,  it  is  highly 
improbable  that  he  ever  received  his  dies  for  the  new 
coinage.  The  actual  date  of  the  translation  of  his 
successor  Gerard,  Bishop  of  Hereford,  to  the  Archiepisco- 
pacy  seems  to  be  omitted  by  the  chroniclers,  but  it  was 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      483 

certainly  prior  to  September,  1101,  when  he  witnessed  the 
charters  to  Bath  and  Norwich,  and  was  probably  Christ- 
mas, 1100,  when  the  King  kept  his  Court  at  Westminster. 
Gerard  held  the  Primacy  from  late  in  1100,  or  early  in 
1101,  to  the  spring  of  1108,  and  for  that  period  we  have 

a  complete  series  of  types  amongst  our  coins  of  York 

namely,  251  (1100-1102),  254  (1102-1104),  253  (1104- 
1106),  and  252  (1106-1108). 

These  types  do  not  disclose  the  names  of  more  than  two 
moneyers  at  a  time,  and  therefore  the  following  extract 
from  the  writ  of  quo  warranto  proves  that  they  must  have 
been  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  Archbishop,  for  if 
there  were  only  two  moneyers  then  coining  at  York,  and 
Archbishop  Gerard  sustained  his  plea  concerning  his 
mo-neyerSy  there  is  no  room  in  the  evidence  of  our  coins  for 
a  royal  money er. 

"  Odo,  Sheriff  of  Yorkshire,  did  hinder  Gerard  the  Arch- 
bishop, from  holding  pleas  and  giving  judgment  in  his  Court 
de  Monetariis.  The  Archbishop  complained  to  the  King,  and 
showed  his  seisin  and  the  right  of  the  Church  of  St.  Peter ; 
whereupon  the  King  sent  his  letters  patent  to  the  sheriff,  the 
effect  of  which  was  to  will  and  command  him,  that  Gerard, 
Archbishop,  should  in  the  lands  of  his  Archbishopric,  have 
pleas  in  his  Court  of  his  moneyers,  of  thieves,  and  of  all  others, 
as  Thomas,  Archbishop,  had  in  the  time  of  the  King's  father 
and  brother.  And  that  he  should  execute  the  King's  new 
statutes  of  judgments  or  pleas  of  thieves  and  false  coiners,  and 
that  he  might  do  this  at  his  own  proper  instance,  in  his  own 
court ;  and  that  neither  he  nor  the  Church  should  lose  anything 
by  the  new  statutes,  but  that  he  might  do  in  his  own  Courts, 
by  his  own  instance,  according  to  the  statutes."  Euding,  II., 
p.  234. 

A  "  Court  de  monetariis  "  came  as  a  surprise  in  these 
our  closing  pages,  and  at  least  warranted  an  enquiry. 
This  resulted  in  the  discovery  that  a  transcript  of  King 
Henry's  original  writ  is  extant  and  given  in  the  pages  of  the 


484  NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 

Monasticon.  From  it  we  find  that  the  name  of  the  sheriff 
was  Osbert,  not  Odo,  and  that  the  de  monetariis  referred 
to  the  pleas  and  not  to  the  Court,  which  latter  was,  of 
course,  the  ordinary  ecclesiastical  Court  of  the  Primacy. 
Its  attestation  clause  proves  the  date  to  have  been  1101, 
2,  3,  or  4. 

Henricus  Dei  Gratia",  Rex  Anglorum,  Osberto  vice-comiti, 
et  R.  filio  Geronis  salutem. — Volo  et  pracipio,  ut  Gerardus 
Eborum  Archiepiscopus,  in  terris  ecclesiarum  suarum,  et  in 
omnibus  terris  Eborum  Archiepiscopatus  placita  sua  in  curia 
sibi  habeat ;  et  de  monetariis  suis,  et  de  latronibus,  et  de  omni- 
bus aliis  ;  et  omnes  leges  et  consuetudines  suas,  et  ecclesiarum 
suarum,  habeat  sicut  Thomas  Archiepiscopus  melius  habuit 
tempore  patris  vel  fratris  mei,  et  nova  statuta  mea  de  judiciis, 
sive  de  placitis  latronum  et  falsorum  monetariorum  exequantur, 
et  formant  per  suam  propriam  justiciam  in  curia  sua ;  nee  ipse 
aliquod  perdat  vel  ecclesise  suse  pro  novis  statutis  meis,  si  ea, 
ut  dixi,  in  curia  sua  faciant  per  suam  propriam  justiciam  statuta 
mea.  Teste — R.  Cestriensi  Episcopo,  apud  Winton  in  Pascba. 

The  explanation  suggested  by  this  incident  is  that 
Gerard  had  instituted  his  two  moneyers  at  York  as 
of  right  by  ancient  custom,  and  the  Sheriff  demurred 
because  he  had  received  no  express  confirmation  charter 
from  the  King  of  the  privilege.  Henry  therefore  com- 
promised the  position  by  the  direction  of  his  "letters 
patent."  The  reference  to  the  "new  statutes"  probably 
refers  to  the  ordinances  of  his  Coronation  Charter  of  1100, 
and  this  would  further  narrow  the  date  of  the  plea  to 
Easter,  1101. 

Archbishop  Gerard  was  succeeded  by  Thomas  of  Beverley, 
but  in  consequence  of  his  refusing  to  admit  the  precedence 
of  the  See  of  Canterbury,  his  consecration  was  opposed 
by  Anselm,  and  did  not  take  place  until  June  27th,  1109, 
after  the  death  of  the  latter.  He  returned  to  York  in 
August  (Melrose),  and  was  present  at  the  Nottingham 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      485 

Council  in  the  autumn  of  that  year  (charters  to  Ely  and 
Norwich)  and  type  256  (1108-1110),  if  a  sale  catalogue  is 
reliable,  represents  his  coinage  at  York  at  this  period.  But 
now  his  name  disappears  from  our  chronicles  and  charters, 
and  it  is  possible  that  he  accompanied  the  King  to  Normandy 
and  probably  journeyed  to  Rome,  for  the  two  types  which 
represent  the  remaining  three-and-a-half  years  of  his 
Primacy  are  absent.  Or  it  may  be  that  in  the  absence 
of  renewed  letters  patent  from  the  King,  the  Sheriff 
again  demurred  to  the  Archbishop's  right  of  coinage,  that 
the  question  remained  in  dispute  until  his  death  on 
February  24th,  1114,  and  that  consequently  the  mint 
remained  in  abeyance.  This  is  the  more  probable,  as 
we  have  the  evidence  of  several  records,  that  in  later 
times  the  question  was  still  unsolved  as  to  whether 
the  prescriptive  rights  of  coinage  of  the  Archbishop 
of  York  required  confirmation  by  the  King's  writ 
before  they  could  be  exercised  by  a  newly  enthroned 
Primate. 

On  the  15th  of  August,  1114,  Henry  appointed  his 
chaplain,  Thurstan,  to  the  vacant  See,  but  upon  offering 
himself  for  consecration, 

"  a  violent  quarrel  arose  between  Ralph,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  and  Thurstan,  Archbishop  of  York,  because  the 
Archbishop  of  York  refused  to  consider  himself  subordinate  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  as  his  predecessors  had  been 
accustomed  to  do,  and  the  cause  was  often  discussed  before  the 
King  and  the  Pope,  although  it  was  not,  as  yet,  finally 
decided."  (Westminster.) 

"  King  Henry,  finding  that  Thurstan  persisted  in  his  resolu- 
tion, openly  declared  that  he  should  either  follow  the  usages  of 
his  predecessors,  both  in  making  the  profession  and  in  other 
things  pertaining  by  ancient  right  to  the  Church  of  Canterbury, 
or  lose  the  Archbishopric  of  York  and  consecration  altogether. 
On  hearing  this,  he  (Thurstan)  was  so  moved  by  the  hasty 
impulses  of  his  temper  that  he  gave  up  the  Archbishopric." 
(Florence.) 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  3    R 


486  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

During  this  period  of  controversy,  therefore,  the  mint 
of  York  remained  of  necessity  closed,  but  on  April  5th, 
1117,  Pope  Paschal  II  interposed  with  a  letter  of  direc- 
tion to  the  King,  upon  the  strength  of  which,  as  "William  of 
Malmesbury  tells  us  in  his  Gesta  Pontificum,  Thurstan 
was  allowed  to  freely  resume  his  See.  Immediately  type 
264  (1116-1119)  appears  amongst  our  York  coins,  and  no 
doubt  represents  a  coinage  issued  by  the  Archbishop  in 
evidence  that  he  would  admit  no  encroachment  upon  the 
ancient  privileges  of  his  See,  either  in  the  form  of  "  letters 
patent  "  from  the  King,  or  otherwise,  in  confirmation  of 
what  he  claimed  by  prescriptive  right.  The  coin  itself 
is  a  record  of  the  character  of  the  proud  ecclesiastic,  for 
worked  into  the  design  of  the  obverse  die  there  is  a 
profusion  of  annulets  representing  the  symbol,  or  Annulus 
piscatoris,  of  St.  Peter,  whose  representative  he  claimed  to 
be.  In  this,  as  will  be  presently  explained,  the  old  Saxon 
custom  is  revived  of  emphasizing  the  ecclesiastical  origin 
of  the  coin. 

Whilst  this  type  was  still  current,  Thurstan  obtained 
Henry's  permission  to  visit  Pope  Calixtus  II  at  Rheims, 
and  in  the  autumn  of  1119  the  Pope  was  persuaded  to 
consecrate  him.  This  was  directly  against  the  King's 
instructions  to  the  Archbishop,  and  in  consequence  Henry 
forbade  his  return  and  banished  him  from  the  country. 
How  long  the  banishment  continued  is  somewhat  uncertain, 
but,  in  consequence  of  the  energetic  support  of  the  Pope 
in  favour  of  Thurstan,  the  King  was  compelled  to  with- 
draw the  edict.  Thurstan's  name  appears  as  a  witness  to 
the  Plympton  charter,  which  is  believed  by  Mr.  Round  to 
have  been  given  at  the  Easter  Court  at  "Winchester  in 
1123,  and  it  was  then  perhaps  that  he  was  first  granted 
an  audience  by  the  King,  but  the  Pipe  Roll  almost 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      487 

implies  that  he  was  not  reinstated  in  the  temporalities  of 
his  See  until  a  much  later  date. 

From  the  Easter  Court  he  returned  with  Henry  to 
Normandy,  for  in  June  or  July,  1123,  he  was  with  him 
at  Rouen  (Florence).  Thence  he  journeyed  to  Rome,  but 
returned  to  Normandy  in  1125,  where  he  witnessed  the 
charter  to  Reading,  but  he  again  visited  Rome.  These 
proceedings  suggest  that  important  negotiations  were 
passing  between  the  Pope  and  the  King  with  reference  to 
his  reinstallation  at  York,  and  when  we  read  the  entry  in 
the  1129-30  Pipe  Roll  that  Serb  de  Burg,  the  King's 
sequestrator,  was  even  then  accounting  for  arrears  of  the 
returns  of  the  Archbishopric,  and  notice  the  fact  that  the 
mint  at  York  seems  to  still  remain  dormant,  we  may 
almost  assume  that  it  was  not  until  the  year  1126  or  1127 
that  Thurstan  was  readmitted  into  the  temporal  possession 
of  his  Archiepiscopacy. 

At  the  Christmas  Court  of  1126-27  we  hear  the  last 
of  the  struggle  for  precedence,  and  in  the  following  year 
the  mint  of  York  is  reopened  with  type  262  (1128-1131). 
This  is  followed  by  255  (1131-1135),  which  completes  the 
series  of  Henry  I's  reign. 

Nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  the  ecclesiastical 
origin  of  certain  of  our  ancient  money  than  the  use  of 
the  annulet  on  the  coins  of  York.  Under  Peterborough 
and  Reading  attention  has  been  called  to  the  occasional  use 
of  this  symbol,  but  it  is  at  York  that  we  find  a  complete 
series  of  coins  so  countermarked  to  distinguish  them 
from  the  otherwise  similar  money  issued  under  tha 
King's  authority.  From  the  day  when  the  Archbishops 
of  York,  in  the  time  of  King  Alfred,  ceased  to  issue 
money  bearing  their  own  names  and  titles,  the  annulet 
appears  upon  a  certain  proportion  of  the  coins  of  that 


488  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

mint ;  for  we  find  it  as  early  as  during  the  Danish  occu- 
pation on  the  coins  of  St.  Peter  and  on  some  of  Anlaf 
and  Eric.  It  is  continued  throughout  the  whole  of  the 
Saxon  series,  and  its  purpose  was  to  assist  in  distin- 
guishing the  ecclesiastical  from  the  secular  coinage,  but 
— and  this  is  significant — when  King  William  closed  the 
royal  mint  at  York,  any  such  distinction  being  therefore 
no  longer  required,  it  coincidentally  disappears  from  the 
coins  until  reintroduced  by  Archbishop  Thurstan  in  1117 
as  above  explained. 

It  again  appears  in  Henry's  reign  upon  a  coin  of  type 
255  (1131-1135),  which  supports  the  theory,  now  advanced, 
that  Henry  I  at  this  period  revived  the  use  of  the  Arch- 
bishop's third  die,  but  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  a  royal 
moneyer  ;  thus  reinstating  a  King's  moneyer  and  mint  at 
York,  and  therefore  necessitating  on  the  Primate's  part  a 
return  to  the  old  distinction.  That  this  is  not  mere 
surmise  is  shown  by  the  following  record,  also,  from  the 
writ  quo  warranto — 

"  The  Archbishop  stated  further  that  he  and  his  predecessors 
used  to  have  a  third  die,  which  the  King  then  had  in  this  city ; 
and  prayed  that  his  right  therein  might  be  saved  to  him ;  which 
plea  was  allowed."  (Drake.) 

In  the  course  of  time  the  annulet  gave  place  to  other 
symbols,  such  as  the  Keys  of  St.  Peter,  the  initials  of  the 
Archbishops,  &c.,  and  the  Archiepiscopal  mint  survived 
until  the  Reformation.  Its  site,  or,  at  least,  its  final 
site,  was  still  known  in  modern  times  as  The  Mint 
Yard. 

Regal  coinage  ivt  York,  after  many  intermissions,  ceased 
in  the  reign  of  William  III. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      489 

COINS. 
*BRIHT[NOD]  ON  EOF  251 

Sale,  April,  1874.  This  moneyer's  name  occurs 
on  Saxon  coins  of  this  mint. 

*BEIHTNO[D] 251 

Marsham  Sale,  1888,  £3. 

.frBRIRNRD  ON  EFR  •*  HENRI  REX        253 

H.  M.  Reynolds,  14J  grs.  From  the  Edin- 
burgh Sale,  1884. 

*RA .....   ON  EBO  *I\ENRI  REX        252 

L.  A.  Lawrence,  20  grs.  The  variety  Fig.  E 
described  on  page  56 ;  illustrated  also  in  the 
Gentleman's  Magazine,  1800,  page  817,  and 
(erroneously)  Ruding,  Sup.  II.,  2,  No.  8. 
From  the  Sharp  (Coventry)  and  Woolston 
collections.  EBO[RACUM]  on  this  speci- 
men is  the  first  revival  of  the  ancient  name 
of  York  on  any  coin  since  the  time  of 
Athelstan. 

*TVR[STAN]  ON  EVE  .frhENRIEVS         255 

Lincoln  and  Son.  This  moneyer  continued  to 
coin  in  Stephen's  reign. 

^TVRSTAN  [ON]  EVE  ^IxENRIEVS          255 

S.  Smith 

:  ON  :  EVERPI  fchENRI ...  255 

Watford  find ;  Royal  Mint  collection ;  J.  Verity. 
Ulf  continued  to  coin  here  in  the  reign  of 
King  Stephen,  and  was,  no  doubt,  the  father 
of  the  "  Thomas  films  Ulf"  on  the  Eustace 


490  NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 

type,  Hawkins,  631  ;  which  is  fatal  to  the 
claims  for  the  identification  of  the  latter  with 
Thomas  fitz  Ulviet,  the  Pipe  Boll  "  Alder- 
man of  the  Guild  of  Merchants  at  York." 


:  0]N  :  EVEEWIE  :         .frftENE  ...  255 

Watford  find,  2  specimens. 

g  ON  S  EVEEWI  .         .  .  ENEIEV  255 

Lady  Buckley,  21  f  grs.  An  annulet  in  the 
centre  of  the  reverse  cross,  and  small  annulets 
in  place  of  the  usual  pellets  for  the  colons 
of  division  in  the  reverse  legend.  As  to  this 
coin,  see  before. 

KIE  :  ON  [E]VE  :  *I\ENE  .....         262 

F.  Spicer. 

EE  ON  [EVJEE  *hEN  ----  SB        262 

Watford  find. 

ON  :  EVE  .  I\ENEI  ...  255 

L.A.  Lawrence,  20  grs.,  from  Viscount  Dillon's 
collection;  Carrutber's  Sale,  1857.  The 
moneyer  was  probably  Ulf. 

____   ON  EV  255 

Watford  find,  ditto. 
:  ON  :  EVEE  *I\  ........  E  :         264 


H.  M.  Reynolds,  22  grs.  The  design  of  the 
obverse  is  decorated  with  numerous  minute 
annulets.  As  to  this  coin,  see  before. 

Webb  Sale,  1884,  £2  4s.  254 

Kirby  Sale,  1888  256 


A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGX   OF   HENRY  I.      491 

Coma. 

Unappropriated  or  Additional. 
•^.AILEED    ......  .........  255 

Watford  find.  Possibly  Alfred  of  London  who 
coined  for  Stephen. 

*BVREhART:    0  ......       Ix  .  .  .  .  {  S.'  IV* 

Described  and  illustrated,  page  82.  The  name 
is,  probably,  for  Burchart,  from  which  we 
have  Barchard,  and  suggests  an  East  Anglian 
mint. 

4,0-    IiEIQVN  :  ON  B  ,  .  267 

Bari  find.  As  the  reading  was  originally  taken 
from  a  drawing  of  the  coin  it  is,  possibly, 
mistaken. 

*RAVEN6IAR..    ..  *IiENRIEVS  :         255 

Watford  find. 
*STI6AD:    ......  .  .  .  .  EIEVS  E          262 

Watford  find, 

CANTERBURY. 

EEX        257 


*PVLFRIE 

L.  A.  Lawrence.  This  coin  further  supports 
the  suggestion  on  page  132  that  the  Abbot 
of  St.  Augustine's  maintained  his  right  to  a 
moneyer  at  Canterbury. 

*PVLSI  ON  ENTLEI  *hENEI  E  254 

W.  T.  Ready. 


492  NUMISMATIC  CHRONICLE. 

NOTES. 

Page      2,  line  14,  Read  "  more  than  a  life  interest." 
„        71,    ,,      2,     ,,       "  sceptre  fleury,  or  surmounted." 
,,      130,    ,,    33,     „       "  (Eynsford)  pays  9s." 
„      138,    „      3,     „       "  Mr.  F.  Jenkinson." 
„      168,    „    26,     „       "  The  burgs  [of  the  county]  pay." 
„     202,    „    24,     „       "255." 
„     220,    „    43,     „       "  there  were  three  moneyers." 


CUT  HALFPENNIES  AND  THE  "  SNICKED  "  COINS. 
On  pages  54  and  55  the  proclamation  of  1108  prohibiting  the 
cut  halfpennies,  and  the  record  in  Malmesbury  that  the  King 
ordered  all  the  money  to  be  "  snicked  "  are  connected  as  serving 
some  common  purpose,  in  abolishing  the  cut  halfpenny,  and 
purifying  the  coinage.  Again,  on  page  78,  it  is  pointed  out 
that,  so  long  as  all  the  money  was  so  snicked,  the  cut  halfpenny 
does  not  appear,  and,  on  page  9,  that  the  severance  of  the  half- 
penny invariably  followed  the  line  of  the  reverse  cross.  It 
will  be  noticed  from  the  coins,  or  from  the  illustrations  upon 
which  the  incision  can  be  traced,  that  it  is  almost  invariably 
oblique,  and  that  it  is  never  in  line  with  an  arm  of  the  reverse 
cross.  The  sffeet  of  this  was,  of  course,  that  if  a  snicked 
penny  was  severed  into  two  halfpennies,  one  of  them  would  be 
so  weakened  by  the  incision,  as  to  be  useless  for  circulation,  and 
so  one  good  halfpenny  only  would  be  the  result  of  an  experi- 
ment, not  likely  to  be  repeated  when  coined  money  was  always 
at  a  premium. 

THE  RHUDDLAN  MINT  OF  WILLIAM  I. 

On  page  147  the  expression  in  Domesday,  medietatem  monetce, 
is  rendered  "  a  half  share  in  the  mint,"  and  Ruding,  in  vol.  ii., 
page  240,  translates  it  as  a  moiety  of  the  mint.  But  it,  more 
probably,  refers  to  the  middle  penny  of  the  three  into  which, 
for  purposes  of  the  Exchequer,  similar  revenue  was  then  figura- 
tively divided,  and  so  would  be  the  tertim  denarius. 


A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF    HENRY  I.      493 
TABLE   OF   THE  MINTS  AND    THEIR   TYPES.' 


Order  of  Types  — 
Hawkins'  Types  — 

I. 

251 

II. 

254 

III. 

253 

IV. 
252 

V. 

256 

VI 

257 

VII 
267 

VIII 
266. 

IX 
264 

X. 

263 

XI. 

rv. 

XII 

258 

XIII 
265 

xrv. 

262 

XV. 
255 

Barnstaple  .     . 

Bath  .... 

X 

Bedford  .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

Bristol    .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

Canterbury  . 
Carlisle  .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

Chester  .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

Chichester  .     . 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

Colchester  .     . 

X 

Dorchester  .     . 

X 

X 

Dover     . 

X 

X 

X 

Durham 

Exeter    .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Gloucester  . 

Obv. 

Rev- 

X 

J( 

X 

Hastings     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Hereford     . 

- 

x 

x 

Huntington 

X 

x 

Ipswich  .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

Leicester 

X 

X 

X 

x 

Lewes     .     .     . 

X 

Lincoln  .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

London  . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Northampton  . 

X 

X 

X 

Norwich 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Nottingham 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Oxford   .     .     . 

X 

X 

Peterborough  i 
(Stamford)        j 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Reading.     .     ) 
(London)     .     j 

X 

Rochester    . 

X 

St.  Edmunds- 

bury   .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Salisbury    . 
Sandwich    . 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

Southampton  . 

X 

X 

X 

Southwark  .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Sudbury      .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Tamworth  . 

X 

X 

X 

Thetford     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Wallingford    . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Wareham   . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Warwick    . 

X 

X 

Wilton   .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

Winchester 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Worcester  .     . 

X 

X 

X 

York.     .     .     . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Unappropriated 

X 

Rev. 

Obv. 

X 

X 

1  As  anticipated  on  p.  41,  the  lists  of  mints  under  the  various  types,  pp.  42—96, 
have  been  subjected  to  some  addition  arid  alteration. 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES.  3  S 


494 


NUMISMATIC   CHRONICLE. 


INDEX    TO   THE   MONEYERS    OF   HENRY  I. 


IN  most  of  the  instances  one  form  only  of  the  name  is  given, 
as  the  numerous  variations  will  be  found  under  the  references. 

It  by  no  means  follows  that  all  the  types  opposite  to  the  names 
were  issued  by  the  same  moneyer,  as  no  distinction  is  here 
drawn  between  two  persons  of  the  same  name  and  mint.  For 
instance,  there  was  certainly  two  money ers  at  Winchester, 
during  this  reign,  named  "WTMVND. 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

ABEEEAND     . 

Thetford    .     . 

252  ?,  266 

426 

AEVS      .     .     . 

Thetford    .     . 

252 

426 

ADALBOT  .     . 

St.  Edmunds- 

252 

390 

bury 

2ED6AE  .     .     1 
2ET6AE  .     .     j 

f  Eeading   .     . 
{  (London) 

255 

373-77 

AEDPAED  .     . 

Colchester 

265 

160,  166 

JE6ELPAED    . 

Wilton  .     .     . 

253 

452 

^EGLNOD  .     . 

Oxford  .     .     . 

251 

358 

2ELDEED    .     . 

Tamworth  ?    . 

254 

420 

j\ZE]LFPINE    . 

Exeter  .    .     . 

254,  252 

195 

JELSIE   .     .     . 

Colchester 

265 

166 

2ELSTAN     .      . 

Eochester  .     . 

251 

382-84 

yELWI    .     .     . 

Lincoln 

255 

268-69 

AGhEMVND    . 

Canterbury    . 

258,  255 

134-35 

AHGEMVND    . 

Lincoln     .     . 

251 

269 

AILMAE     .     . 

Chester      .     . 

255 

149 

AILEED 

255 

491 

AILWA[ED]    . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

262 

126 

AILWAED  .     . 

Winchester    . 

255 

464 

AILPI     .     .     . 

Norwich    . 

255 

334 

AILPINE    .     . 

Winchester    . 

263,  262 

457,  464-65 

AINVLF      .     . 

Winchester     . 

252,      265?, 

457-58,  465 

255? 

ALDENA 

Norwich    .     . 

252 

334 

A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  I.      495 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

ALFEIEVS  .     . 

Winchester    . 

262,  255 

463-66 

ALFPINE    .     . 

Gloucester 

Obv.263—Bev. 

200-2 

IV.,  262,  255 

1 

London      .     . 

251,  254,  253, 

\ 

252,  267,  266, 

ALFPINE   .     < 

263,  258,  265, 

200-2, 

255 

287-91 

\ 

Southwark 

256,  262 

London      .     . 

251,  254,  252, 

AL6AE  .     .     • 

257,  267,  IV., 

283-84, 

265,  262 

291-93 

Southwark 

258,  262 

ALEA[ND?]    . 

Thetford    .     . 

262 

427 

AL[PI]NE  .     . 

Nottingham  . 

IV.,  265 

350 

ALPOLD      .     , 

Winchester     . 

255 

466 

AEEIL    .     .     ) 
ARNEIL      .     j 

Lincoln      .     . 

J251,       252, 
\  263,  255 

261,  269-70 

AEEIL   .     . 

Peterborough 
(Stamford)      . 

|  254,  253 

369 

ASEIxETIE 

Thetford    .     . 

251,  IV.,  265 

427 

ASLADE      .     . 

Lincoln     .     . 

255 

270 

BALDEP1NE  . 

London     .     . 

255 

293 

BALDEPIN 

Eeading     .     . 
(London)  .     . 

J        255 

293,  376-78 

BALDPINE      . 

Norwich    .     . 

255 

334 

BAND     .     .     ) 
BEAND  .     .     ) 

Thetford    .     . 

254 

427-28 

BAELVIT    .     . 

Hastings   .     . 

254 

209 

BLAEAMAN    . 

London      .     . 

252,  256,  IV., 

293-94,  301, 

267?,  258,  262 

309 

BONIFAEE      . 

Hastings   .     . 

IV. 

206,  208-9 

BRAND  .     .     . 

Chichester 

267,  266,  IV. 

153,  156-58 

BEAND  .     .     . 

Exeter  .     .     . 

262 

195 

BEANT  .     .     . 

London      .     . 

252 

295 

BEIiIEDPI       . 

Exeter  .     .     . 

255 

195 

BEHTME     .     . 

Lewes  .     .     . 

251 

257 

BEHTOD     .     . 

Thetford    .    . 

254 

428 

BEIEhMAE     . 

London      .     . 

255 

295,  419-20 

B[EIEI\]MAEE 
BEIHTNO[D] 
BEIHTIE    .     . 

Tamworth 
York     .     .     . 
Wallingford  . 

262 
251 
251 

419-20 
489 
435-36 

BEIfxTPIN  .     . 

London      .     . 

251 

295 

496 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

BEIENED  .     . 

York     .     .     . 

253 

489 

BEVMAN    .     . 

Lincoln 

251 

270 

BEVNLC      .     . 

London      .     . 

251,  252 

295 

BEVNI6      .     . 

Wilton  .     .     . 

267 

452 

BEVNMAN       . 

Lincoln      .     . 

255 

270 

BVEEfiAET 

Obv.  258  

82,  491 

Rev.  IV. 

EINEI  ?  .     .     . 

Hereford    .     . 

255 

217 

EOE  .... 

Norwich    .     . 

255 

334-35 

DEEEMAN       . 

London      .     . 

255 

281-82,296-97 

DEEIEVS,  see 

EDEIEVS. 

DEELI6       .     . 

Huntingdon  . 

262 

227 

DEELINE  .     . 

Wareham  .     . 

267,  266 

441-42,  458 

DOET?  .     .     . 

Southampton 

252 

409 

DEMAN       .     . 

Hastings    . 

251 

209 

DVNINE      .     . 

Hastings    .     . 

252,  258 

209-10 

DVEANT     .     . 

Carlisle      .     . 

262 

142 

ED6AE  .     .     . 

Ipswich     .     . 

253 

237 

EDMVND    .     . 

Leicester   .     . 

264 

250 

EDMVND    .     . 

Lincoln     .     . 

255 

270 

EDEIEVS    .     . 

Bedford     .     . 

265 

116,  126,  216 

EDEIEVS    .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

265 

116,  126,  216 

EDEIEVS    .     . 

Hereford    .     . 

262 

126,  216-18 

EDSTAN     .     ) 
ETSTAN      .      j 

Norwich    .     . 

(253,       257, 
267,       IV., 

327,  331-32, 
335-36,  378 

(    258,  255 

EDPINE      .     . 

Canterbury    . 

251,  265 

134-35 

EDPINE      .     . 

Hereford    .     . 

255 

218 

EDPINE      .     . 

London      .     . 

258 

297 

EDPINE      .     . 

Norwich    .     . 

255 

335 

ELFPINE,  see 

ALFPINE. 

EN6ELEAM    . 

Thetford    .     . 

264 

428 

EN6ELEAM    . 

Winchester    . 

IV.,  265,  262 

457,        462, 

466-67 

EEEBALD  .     . 

Carlisle      .     . 

255 

29,  142-43 

ESTALZEB    .     . 

London      .     . 

251 

297 

ESTMVND  .     . 

London     .    . 

255 

298 

A   NUMISMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN    OF   HENRY  I.      497 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

FEELING 

Norwich    .     . 

254 

337 

FVIL6EED      . 

Leicester   .     . 

252 

250-51 

6EFFEEI    .     . 

Northampton 

262 

223-24 

6EEAVD     .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

262 

126,  268 

6EEMAN    .     . 

Ipswich     .     . 

262 

237 

6ILEBEED       . 

London     .     . 

255 

298-99 

6ILEBEET       . 

St.  Edmunds- 

IV.,  255 

890-91 

bury 

6ILLEMOE      . 

Chester      .     . 

262 

150 

60DEIE      .     . 

Hastings   .     . 

253 

210 

60DEIEVS      . 

Lincoln 

254,  264,  258, 

268,  270-71 

262,  255 

60DEIEVS 

London      .     . 
Southwark     . 

255 
262 

299 
299 

60DEIE      . 

Peterborough 
(Stamford)     . 

1  253,  264 

370 

60DEIE      .     . 

St.  Edmunds- 

265,  262 

390-92 

bury 

60DEIE      .     . 

Salisbury  ,     . 

251 

401 

60DEIE      .     . 

Worcester 

265 

478 

60DPINE   .     . 

Chichester 

264 

158 

60DPINE    . 

London      .     . 
Southwark      . 

251,  262,  255 
252 

281-83,  300 
300 

6ODPINE    .     . 

Thetford    .     . 

254,  267,  262 

428 

60DP1NE   .     . 

Wallingtord  . 

267 

435-36 

60DPINE    .     . 

Warwick  .     . 

265 

446-47 

60DPINE   .     1 
60TPINE    .     ) 

Winchester    . 

(251,      253, 
257,      267, 
(    266,  255 

457-58,467-68 

GOLDPINE      . 

Dover    .     .     . 

251 

176 

60[LT]SE  .     . 
6EE60EI    .     . 

Sandwich  .     . 
Canterbury     . 

262 
264 

404-5 
135 

6EIM      .     .     . 

Canterbury    . 

262 

136 

I\AMVND    .     . 

London      .     . 

255 

300 

HEIEMAN  . 

Peterborough 
(Stamford)     . 

|        251 

370 

I\EEIEVS,  see 

EDEIEVS. 

T\EETI\I6  .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

IV.,  262,  255 

127 

h[I]PI6.     .     . 

Winchester    . 

255 

458,  468 

498 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

hIRMOR     . 
HOPORD     .     . 

Peterborough 
(Stamford)     . 
Norwich    .     . 

}253,     265?, 
J        262 
251,  254,  253 

370-71 
337 

IE,  see  IE. 

LEFRED      .     } 
LIFRED      .      j 

London      .     . 

255 

303 

LEFRIE      .     . 

Lincoln      .     . 

255 

271 

LEFPARD  .     I 
LIFPORD    .     ) 

Southwark 

251,  257 

302-3 

LEFPINE    .     ) 
LIFPINE    .     j 

LEFPINE    .     . 

j  London     .     . 
(  Southwark    . 

Tamworth 

255 

251,  254,256, 
257,  266,  264, 
IV.,  258,   262 
265 

302,  419 
288,  301-2 

420 

LEFPINE    .     . 
LEVSI    .     . 

LEOPINE    .     ) 
LVFPINE    .     j 

Winchester    . 
Peterborough 
(Stamford)      . 

Ipswich     .     . 

265,  262 
255 

251,  253 

467-68 
370 

237 

LIFNOD     .     . 

Thetford     .     . 

253 

429 

MORVS  .     . 

Peterborough 
(Stamford)      . 

I        264 

370 

NE[EOLL?]    . 
NVI\ERD    .     . 

Thetford    .     . 
Lincoln      .     . 

267 
257,  258 

429 
271-72 

ODDE     .     .     . 
ODE  .... 

St.  Edmunds- 
bury 
Thetford    .    . 

262 
255 

392,  429 
429 

ONTETF?    .     . 
ORD6ARVS      . 

London      .     . 
London      .     . 

267 
251,  265,  262, 
255 

303,  429 
217,  304-5 

ORIM,  see  GRIM 
ORDPI    .     .     . 

Durham     .     . 

262 

186 

OSBERN      .     . 

Bath     .     .     . 

262 

112 

OSBERN      .     . 

Dorchester 

262 

171 

OSBERN      .     . 
OSBERN      .     . 

Ipswich     .     . 
London      .     . 

255 
255 

237-38 
305 

OSBERN      .     . 

Norwich    .     . 

252 

388 

OSBERN      .     . 

Salisbury  .     . 

254,  253 

401-2 

A    NUMISMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HEXRY  I. 


499 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

OSBEEN      .     . 

Sudbury    .     . 

265,  262 

414 

OSBERTVS       . 

Lincoln      .     . 

255 

268,  272 

OSBE      .     .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

253 

127 

OSM^EB  .     .     . 

Warwick    . 

253 

446-7 

OTEE      .     .     . 

Barnstaple 

265 

107 

OTEE      .     .     . 

Norwich    .     . 

255 

338 

OSVLF    .     .     } 

OSWLF      .      ) 

Wallingford  . 

264,  265 

436-7 

OSPOLDVS       . 

Ipswich     .     . 

262 

238 

PAIEN   .     .     . 

Northampton 

255 

324 

PAIEN    .     .     . 

Southampton 

265 

323,  409 

PEEIN    .     .     . 

Canterbury    . 

253 

136 

EAVLEVS  .     ^ 

EAPVLF      . 
EABLVF      .      ' 

London      .     . 

(253,       267, 
1264,      265, 

305-6,  356-57, 
465 

EADVLVS  ? 

(        262 

EAPVLF      . 
EAWLF  .     . 

Oxford  .     .     . 

255 

356-59,  306 

EAVEN6IAE   . 

255 

491 

EA  

York     .     .     . 

252 

56,  489 

EIEAED      .     . 

Lincoln      .     . 

251 

272 

EIEAED      .     . 

Wilton  .     .     . 

262 

451-52 

EIEEAED   .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

255 

127 

EOBERD     .     . 

London      .     . 

255 

307 

EODBEET  .     . 

Canterbury    . 

255 

136 

KODBEET   .     . 

Gloucester 

255 

202 

EODLAND  .     . 

Ipswich     .     . 

265,  262 

238 

E06IEE       .     . 

London     .     . 

255 

307 

SAE6IEM    .     . 

Colchester 

253 

166 

SA6EIM      .     . 

Oxford  .     .     . 

255 

359 

SAIET     .     .     { 
SAIED    .     .     j 

Winchester    . 

(252,       266, 
J  263,       265, 
(   262,  255 

457-58,     462, 
464,  468-70 

SAPINE       .     . 

Gloucester 

255 

203 

SEFPINE    .     . 

Huntingdon  . 

254 

227 

SENPI     .     .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

254 

127 

S[E~|ELIE    .     . 

Southampton 

252 

409 

SEPINE.  see 

LEFPINE. 

500 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

SIxITRIE     .     . 

Norwich     . 

255 

338 

SIBERN  .     .     . 

Salisbury  .     . 

262 

402 

SIER.     .     .     I 
SIRET  ?  .     .     j 

Norwich    .     . 

253,  IV. 

338 

SIERLI  .     .     . 

Wilton  .     .     . 

253 

452 

S252,       267, 

307-8 

SIGARVS     .     J 
SIGNER  .     .     f 

London      .     . 

266,       264, 
263,       IV., 

265,  262 

SIPARD  .     .     . 

Winchester    . 

255 

470 

SIOERNE    .     . 

Canterbury    . 

251 

137 

SM2ERINE 

London      .     . 

251,  257,  255 

294,  309 

SPIRLIN6  .     . 

London      .     . 

251,  252,  IV., 

283-84,309-10 

265 

STANEIxE  .     . 

Thetford    .     . 

256,  255 

429 

STIEFNES  .     . 

Northampton 

265,262,255? 

325 

[STIE]FNE  .     . 

Winchester     . 

255 

470 

fcTIGAD  .     .     . 

262 

491 

SVNSMAN  .     . 

Norwich    .     . 

255 

339 

SPEINE  .     .     . 

Nottingham   . 

262 

342,       346, 

349-50 

SPERftAVOE  . 

Wareham  .     . 

251,0&v.267-- 

441-42 

Bev.    266,  IV. 

SPET.     .     .     . 

Lincoln      .     . 

265,  262 

268,  272 

SWETMAN  .     . 

Oxford  ?     .     . 

255 

318,      353-54, 

359 

SPOTR    .     .     ) 

j  London     .     . 

257,  264 

310 

SNOTR    .     .     j 

{  Southwark    . 

251 

DEODRIE  .      ) 
DVRED  .     . 
DORED  .     .     ) 

London      .     . 

(254?,     252, 
(    267,  263 

281,  291,  311 

ThVRBVRN     . 

Chester      .     . 

255 

150 

TIiVR  

Gloucester 

255 

203 

TOE    .... 

Lincoln      .     . 

IV. 

268,  272 

TOE,  seeEOE. 

TO  VI.     .     .     . 

London 

255 

311 

TO  VI  .... 

Winchester     . 

255 

470 

TVREML   .     . 

Bristol  .     .     . 

255 

128,  203 

TVRRET       .     . 

Chester      .     . 

262 

150 

TVRSTAN    .     . 

York     .     .     . 

255 

489 

VLF    .... 

Southampton 

IV. 

410 

A    NUMISMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    REIGN   OF   HENRY  1.      501 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

VLF    .... 

York     .     .     . 

255 

489-90 

VLFEhlTEL    . 

Norwich    .     . 

265 

327,  331,  339 

VLFRAVEN     . 

London      .     . 

255 

312 

VLF  PINE    .     . 

Winchester     . 

267 

410,  458,  470 

VLP  see 

PVLFPARD. 

[P]^ERIE     .     . 

Hereford   .     . 

255 

218 

WARM  .... 

Leicester   .     . 

262 

251 

WARN?.     .     . 

Winchester    . 

255 

470 

WIBERD      .     . 

Gloucester 

255 

203 

PILhEMAR      . 

Norwich    .     . 

252 

339 

WILLELMVS  . 

Canterbury    . 

255 

137 

PILLELMVS    . 

London      .     . 

255 

312,  357 

PIMVND      /    . 

Winchester     . 

251,  256,267, 

457-59,   466, 

262,  255 

471 

PINEDAI    .     . 

Canterbury     . 

254,  267,  IV., 

112,  137-38 

262,  255 

PINNRIED  . 

Chester  or 
Lewes 

J        251 

151,  257 

PINTERLEDE 

Bath      ... 

265 

112 

PVLGAR      .     \ 
PVLF6AR   .     ) 

London      .     . 

257,      267, 
IV.,       265, 
262 

315 

PVLFRIE     .     . 

Canterbury     . 

251,  257 

138,  491-92 

PVLFRIE    .     | 

Norwich,  or 
Nottingham 

1        257 

345,  350-51 

PVLFRIE     .     . 

Sudbury     .     . 

253,  267 

413-15 

PVLFRIE     .     . 

Worcester  .     . 

IV.,  262 

478 

PVLFPARD      ) 

PVLFPORD 

London      .     . 

251,  IV.,  262 

312-13 

PVLEPORD       ) 

PVLFPART       . 

St.  Edinunds- 

263 

392 

bury 

PVLFPINE       . 

Canterbury     . 

266,  255 

138,  382 

PVLFPINE       . 

Leicester    .     . 

254 

251 

PVLFPINE       . 

London      .     . 

Obv.257—Hfv. 

60,  290,  314 

267,  267,  263, 

255 

PVLFPINE       . 

Rochester  .     . 

251 

382,  384 

PVLFPI       .     . 

Colchester 

262 

167 

PVL[N]OD       . 
PVLSI     .     .     . 

Northampton 
Canterbury     . 

255 
254,  253 

325 
139,  491 

VOL.   I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


3T 


502 


NUMISMATIC    CHRONICLE. 


Moneyer. 

Mint. 

Types. 

Pages. 

Imperfect. 

.  ANDVS       .     . 

Winchester    . 

265 

471 

.  .  .  AWI       .     . 

Exeter  .     .     . 

255 

196 

AR    . 

St.  Edmuncls- 

262 

392 

bury 

.  .  ELIiI       .     . 

Exeter  .     .     . 

255 

196 

.  .  .  ER    .     .     . 

York     .     .     . 

262 

490 

IEEDRR1HL, 

see  DEODRIE 

RA       .     . 

Chester      .     . 

263 

151 

RIE     .     . 

Chester      .     . 

262 

151 

.  .  .  RIE       .     . 

York     .     .     . 

262 

490 

INDEX. 


A. 

Abern,  Ingleram  de,  428 

Abetot,  Ursu  a',  212,  215,  416-17, 

472,  475-6 

Abingdon,  101,  148,  177,  352 
Adeliza,  Queen  to   Henry  1,  156, 

194,  329-30,  333 
Albini,  Wm.  de,  47,  156,  233 
Alcester  Abbey,  249 
Alexander,  King  of  Scotland,  226, 

320 

Algod,  Ralph  fitz,  305 
AmundevilJe,  John  de,  178 
Andrew,  W.  J.,  coins  of,  137,  257, 

270,  292-93,  297,  305,  447 
Anjou,  Geoffrey  of,  194 
Annulets   on   coirs,  28,   156,   158, 

364,  376-78,  467.  486-88,  491 
Armour  on  coins,  89 
Arundel,  47,  152-53,  156,  252 
Athelstan,   King,  Law  of,  18,  48, 
130,  153,  161,  168,  188,  206,  254, 
380,  406,  438.  455 
ATLE,  supposed  mint,  explained, 

102 
Aurifabri  or  Cuneators,  25,  26,  38, 

44,  46-47,  74,  86 
„         Otto  family,  25,  26,  27, 
38- H,  44,  46-47,  71, 
74,    87,    97,    99,    155, 
160,  275,  3S9,  410 
,,         Leostan,  74,  87,  275 

Wyzo  fitz,  87, 

275 

„        Eichard,  127 
„         Ewart,  280 

Auxilium,  160,  164-65,  168,  198, 
•222,  229,  275,  320, 
327-28,  353,  416,  421, 
431,  438 


Avxilium,  connected  with  the  mints, 
165,  171,  330-31,  365, 
357,  418-19,  423-25, 
433-34,  454 

B. 

Bainard,  Geoffrey,  205 
Baldric,  Hugh  titz,  341 
Baldwin,  Sheriff  of  Devon,  103 

,,      Wm.  fitz,  140 
Banes,  A.  A.,  coins  of,  272,  309, 

312,  377,  391 
Barnstaple,  122,  162,  165,  170 

,,         history  and  coins  of, 

102-07 
Barton,  119 
Basset,  Kalph,  342,  450,  456 

„       Richard,  361,  422,  428 
Bath,  119,  381 

,,     history  and  coins  of,    107- 

13 
„      Records  of  coinage  at,  109- 

10 

,,      Adelarus  of,  109 
,,      John,  Bishop  of,  131 
lialau/iii.i,  443 
Battle,  wager  of,  205,  207 
Beauchamp  family,  113-17,  473 
Beaumont,  Hugh,  116 
Becket,  Gilbert,  282,  298 
Bedford,  126 

„        history     and    coina    of, 

113-17 

Bedwin,  mint  of,  407 
Beleme,  see  Shrewsbury,  Earl  of 
Berkeley,  120,  477 
Binge,  F.  E.,  coin  of,  137 
Bigod.  Roger,   163,  228,  326-27, 

389,  397,  421 

William,  229,  233-35,  421 
Hugh,  229,  233-37 


504 


INDEX. 


BISES,  supposed  mint,  explained, 
49,  117-18,  127 

Bishop's  Tawtoii,  103 

Bliss,  T.,  coins  of,  269,  305-06,  312, 
337,  339 

Boat-carles,  173,  256 

Bocland,  Hugh  de,  47 

Bodleian  Library,  38,  353 

,,  ,,         coins  in  the,  117, 

269,  287,  291-92,  306,  309,  314, 
370, 436-37 

Bohun,  Humphrey  de,  395,  400-01 

Boldon-Book,  The,  180,  182 

Boulogne,   Eustace,  Earl  of,   173, 
175 

Bourg-Theroude,  battle  of,  88,  145 

Boyd,  W.  C.,  300 

,,  coins  of,    136,    300, 

314,  471 

Brandon,  flint  workers  of,  276 

Hraose,  Wm.  de,  106 

Bremule,  battle  of,  205,  208,   394, 
399 

Breteuil,  Wm.  de,  460 

Bridgnorth,  152,  164,  215 

Bridport,  mint  of,  407 

Bristol,  history  and  coins  of,  24, 
110,  118-28,  199-201,  476 

British  Museum,   38,  47,   88,    97, 

146-47 

,,  ,,  coins  in  the,  9, 

64,  72,  117,  127,  135,  138-39, 
149-50,  158,  166,  172,  176,  186, 
195-96,  202-03,  209-10,  218, 
238,  250,  257,  270-71,  288-91, 
293-98,  301-15,  324-26,  334-36, 
33S,  350,  358-59,  369-70,  384, 
402,  409,  415,  427-29,  436-37, 
442,  452,  466,  469-71,  478 

Brittany,  Alan,  Earl  of,  229,  231-33 

Bruun,  L.  E.,  coin  of,  294 

Buc  kley,  Lady,  coin  of,  490 

Burg,  Strlode,  480,  487 

Burstal,  E.  K.,  coins  of,  314,  415 

Bury  St.  Edmunds,  seeSt.Ednjunds- 
bury 

Buxton,  107 

C. 

Cambridge,  412 

,,  Museums,  coins  in  the, 

38,  291,  307,  325,  339,  426,  468 
Canterbury,  92,  1/8,  402-04 

,,  history  and  coins  of, 
17,  102,  128-o9,382- 
83,  491-92 


Canterbury,Archbishopsof,Anselm, 
129,  131-33,  212, 
387-88;  Ralph,  130- 
33,  413  ;  Stigand, 
128;  William,  130, 
133-34,  372,  386, 
406 
,,  records  of  moneyers  of, 

266,  382-83 
Carlisle,  148,  320-21 

,,         history   and  coins  of,  29, 

139-43,  185,  322 
,,         records  of    money ers   of, 

29,  142 
,,         silver   mines   of,    29,   31, 

140-41,  384 

Carlyon-Britton,  P.  W.  P.,  coijis 
of,  227,   237,   271-72,   291,  293, 
295,  297,  300,  305,  310,  315,  324, 
338,  436,  442,  465-66,  471 
Charters,  101,  et  alibi 
Chatterton,  125,  447 
ChE,  following  moneyer's  name, 

338 

Chess-men,  ancient,  88 
Chester,  95 

,,        exchequer  of,  145 

,,        sword  of,  14-6-47 

,,        history  and  coins  of,  143- 

51,  191,  481 
,,        records  of  coinage  at,  144, 

H7 

earldom  of,  321,  417 
,,  Earls  i.f,  Gherbod,  144, 
146;  Hugh,  144,146-47, 
152,  190,  207,  385 ; 
Ranulf  de  Meschines, 
140,  145-46,  148-49, 
322;  Ranulf  deGernons, 
145-46,  149,  398;  Rich- 
aid,  144-45,  147-148, 
234-35,  247 ;  Lucia, 
Countess  of,  145-46 
Chichester,  122,  153,  417 

,,  history   and   coins    of, 

122,  151-58,  191 
,,  records  of  moneyers  of , 

153,  156 

„  Bishops    of,    Pelochin, 

153  ;  Ralph,  152-53, 
156-57  :Sigfred,  153, 
372  ;  Stigand,  152 
,,  Earldom  of,  152,  15& 

Cbriskhurch,  191 
Cinque  Ports,  the,  104,  173 
Cirepcester,  119 
Clare,  Hamo  de  St.,  160 


INDEX. 


505 


Clarendon,  406,  408 

Clinton,  Geoffrey  de,  221-22,  227, 

422,  480 

Coinage,  records  of  the,  12,  15,  23, 
29,  55,  80,  85,  99,  et  alibi.  In 
Huvedeti,  1,  20-21,  232.  In  the 
Dialogue  of  the  Exchequer,  8, 
9,  30,  36,  87,  141 
Colcnester,  158,  170-71,  233,  246, 

279,  381,  418.  425 
,,  history   and    coins  of, 

159-67 
,,  records  of  coinage   at, 

160-61 
,,  records  of  money ers  of, 

161,  166-67 
Coleshelle,  415 
Colingham,  ;i63 
Comines,  Robert  de,  177,  182 
Cony  ers,  Roger  de,  181 
Corfield,  E.  T.,  coins  of,  309.  337 
Coutances,    Geoffrey,    Bishop    of, 

103-05,  119,121 
Coventry,  101 
Crediton,  103 

Creeke,  Major  A.  B.,  coin  of,  9 
Cricklade.  mint  of,  407 
Crispin,  Mil  •,  430-31,  433-34 
Crmnpton -Roberts,    C.    M.,    coins 

<.f,  295,  339 
Cross,  initial,  omitted  on  obverse  of 

type  258,  77 
,,     and  pile,  9 

Crown,  Norman  custom  of  succes- 
sion to,  115 

Cumberland,  moneyers  in,  141 
Cuneator,  see  Aurifabri 
Cuts  in  the  edge  of  coins,  55-56, 
69,  492 

D. 

David,  King  of  Scotland,  see  North- 
ampton, Earl  of 

Deakin,  G.,  coins  of,  293,  298,  313 

Dean,  Forest  of,  197 

Deorham,  battle  of,  108 

Derby,  219,  239 

D^rewater,  Wm.  fitz,  424 

Devizes,  396 

Dies,   moneyers'  fees  for,  12,   13, 

473,  et  alibi 
,,      engraved  by  the  Cuneator, 

26-28 

„      how  prepared,  28,  136,  217, 
335,  338 

Dispensator,  Kobert,  416 


Domesday,  why  certain  mints 
omittedfrom,21-22, 
146-47,  153,  169, 
188,  223,  365,  381, 
et  alibi 
,,  customs  of  mints,  12 

212,  et  alibi 
»»  see     history     of    the 

various  mints 
Dorchester,  107,  223,  255,  328,  418, 

425 
,,  history    and  coins  of, 

167-72,  439 
„  records  of  coinage  at, 

168-69 
Douglas,  Capt.  K.  J.  H..  270 

,,        coins  of,  158,  270,  287, 

293,  428,  469 
Dover,  206,  256,  403-04 

„      history    and  coins  of,  94, 

172-76 

„      records  of  moneyers  at,  176 
Draitone,  415 
Duffield,  342,  346 
JJukiudeld-Astley,    Rev.    H.    J., 

420-21 

Dunwich,  its  claims  a*  a  mint,  181 
Durban^  history  and  coins  of,  140, 

176-86 

,,        dies  of,  185 
, ,        records  of  coinage  at,  180, 

182 

,,  Bishopsof,  Egelwine,177, 
182;  Walcher,  177,182; 
William,  131,  177-78; 
Ranulf,  14,  178,  183, 
256,  274 ;  Geoffrey,  109, 
179,  185  ;  Hugh  de 
Pudsey,  181 

E. 

Ecclesiastical  coinage,   18,   28-29, 
131,   212,  214,  362-69,   371-76, 
481-89,  et  alibi 
Edg«r  the  Atheling,  220 
Edgar,  King  of  Scotland,  221,  225 
Edith,  Queen  to  the  Confessor,  228 
Edric,  the  Wild,  211 
Edward  the  Confessor,  his  portrait 
on  coins, 
88 

,,  ,,        coinage  of, 

13,  23,  2o,  32,  88,  et  alibi 

Edward    I.    changes    the    feudal 

character  of  the  coinage,  1U-.20 
Edwin  and  Morcar,  Earls,  220 


506 


INDEX. 


Ely.  101,  328 

,,     Bishop  of,  386 
E.scollaud,  Geoffrey,  178 
Ethelred  II  ,  laws  of,  concerning 

coinage  at  London,  277-79 
Eu,  Robert  d',  204-07 

„  William  fitz,  206 

„     William  d',  205-07 
„      Henry  d',  205-08 
Eudo,  Dapifer,  52,  160-64,  233,  246 
EVSTAEIVS,  coin  of,  89 
Ev.ms,  Sir  John,    15,  56,   59,   62, 
301,  303,  379, 
470 

,,  ,,  coinsof,  64, 195, 

272,  291,  297,  302-03,  324,  339, 
428-29,  44'J,  467,  469-71 
Exchequer,  audit  of  the,  7-9,  121, 

179 
,,  Dialogue  of  the,  7,  et 

alibi 

„  its  tests  of  the  money,  8 

„  year,  the,  101,229,260 

Exeter,  169 

„      See  of,  187 

, ,      history  and  coins  of,  186-96 
„      William,  Bishop  of,  193 
Eyam.  341 
Eynsford,  William  de,  130 


Farthings,  8-12,  55 

Fashions  in  design  of  coins,  88 

Finds  of  Henry  I's  coins,  32-35 

,,  „         ,,        deduc- 

tions from,  14-15,  32-35.  70 
Find*  of  Henry  Is  coin*  at — 
Ashby  Wolds,  33,  97-98 
Bari,  Italy,  33,  36,  59,  61-62,  et 

alibi 

Battle,  33,  36.  73,  77,  79,  97,  98 
Bermondsey,  33,  36,  43,  45 
Dartford,  33,  36,  97,  98 
Linton,  33,  36,  97,  98 
Milford  Hiven,  33,   36,  84,  91, 

94,  217 
Nottingham,  33,  36,  43,  73,  97, 

98,  347-49,  435 
Shillington,  33,  36,  53-54 
Wallop,  33,  59,  77,  79,  97,  98 
Watford,  33-34,  36,  91,  98,  100, 

et  alibi 
Finds  of  single  coins  of  Henry  I 

at — 

Bedford,  289 
Ixworth,  269 


Finds  of  single  coins  of  Henry  I 
at— 

Reading  Abbey,  67,  469 

St.  Albans.  292 

St.  Edmundsbury,  392 

St.  John's,  401 

Whepstead.  392 

in  Somersetshire,  237 

in  th«  Thames,  302 
Finds  of  coins  of  other  reigns  at — 

Beaworth,  36,  44,  179 

Dimchurch,  36 

London,  City  of.  36 

Tamworth,  36,  435 

York,  36 

Flambard,  see  Durham,  Bishops  of 
Flemings,  the,  32 
Fontibus.  Fulco  de,  380 
Forgeries,    modern,    84,    89r   326, 

437 

G. 

Gates,  city,  mints  in  the,  278-79, 

346,  359,  363,  419 
Gateshead,  177 
Geoffrey,  the  Chancellor,  109,  213, 

216.     flee  Durham,  Bishops  of 
Glastonbury,  Abbots  of,  92, 153, 157 
Gloucester,  24,   116,    119-20,   224, 

477 
,,         history  and  coins  of, 

24,  110,  124-25,  196- 
203 

,,         records  of  coinage  at, 

„  197-98 

,,  BrihtricEaldormanof, 
121,  196 

„  Milo  fi-z  Walter, 
Constable  of,  126, 
197,  217,  231 

„         Robert,  Earl  of,  120- 

25,  130,    145,    174, 
179,    194,    199-201, 
235,    348-49,     394, 
436,  477 

„         Walter  de,  197 
Godwin.  Earl,  173,  274 
Gould,  I.  C.,  159,  239,  260 
Grantham,  148 
Grantmesnil,  Hugh  de,  240,  397 

„  Ivo  de,  240,  344 

Grueber,  H.  A.,  257,  350 

,,       on   status   of    moneyers, 

265 

,,        on  early  coinage  at  Ro- 
chester, 380 


INDEX. 


507 


Guader,  see  Norfolk,  Earl  of 
Guildford,  mint  of,  294,  3l>9 
Guilds,  civic,  31,  173,  259,  275, 

454,  480,  490 
Gunthorpe,  323 
Gurth,  Earl,  228,  230 

H. 

H,  the  old  form  of,  disappears  from 

coins  in  1106,  50,  84,  409 
HA.DEW,     supposed    mint,    ex- 
plained, 203 
Hair,  long,  on  coins,  88 
Halfpenny,  the,  8-12,  55,  78-79, 

84-86,  91 
„          records  of  the,   8-12, 

15,  55,  492 

,,  pennies  incised  to  pre- 

vent the  making  of 
the  cut,  492 
,,  issued  from  the  mints, 

10-11 
,,  a  means  of  fraud,  10- 

11 
, ,          abolished  by  Edward  I , 

12 

Hall,  J.,  coin  of,  304 
Hamon,  Robert  fitz,    119-25,  163, 

197  200,  207 

„        the  dapifer,  164,  414 
Hastings,  173-74,  415-416 

,,         history  and  coins  of,  94, 

204-10 
,,          records  of  moneyers  at, 

206,  208-09 

Hawkins'  silver  coins  of  England, 
numbers  to  plates  here 
adopted  for  Henry's 
types  4 1 

,,          does   not   attempt    any 
chronological  order  in 
Henry's  types,  3,  41 
Hedenham,  380 
Henderson,   J.   S.,   coins  of,  237, 

302,  309,  436,  469 
Henry  I  instituted    payments  in 

coin,  31 

,,       his  treasury,  99,  454,  460 

,,       estimated  number  of  his 

coins,  34,  96,  99.     See 

under  the  various  types 

Henry  II  restricts  changes  in  type, 

20,  37 

„         his  coinage,  15,  32,  98 
Herbert,  the  Chamberlain,  456 
Hereford,  1'26,  219,  417 


Hereford,  history  and  coins  of,  126, 

210-18,  331 
,,        records    of    coinage  at, 

212-14 
,,        records  of  moneyers  at, 

213,  216-17 
„        Earls  of,  William,  190, 

211-14 
„        Roger,    211-15.      Milo, 

see  Gloucester 
„        Bishops    of,    212,    213, 

216 

Hereward,  177,  182,  337,  360 
Heywood,  N.,  127 

,,         „      corns  of,  290,  377 
Hill,  G.  F.,  98,  446,  480 
Hodges,  G.,  coin  of,  294 
Hocking,  W.  J.,  137,  466 
Hoctou,  Pain  de,  324,  394.  400 
Housecarles,  the  Saxon,  168,  438 
Howard,  origin  of  family  of,  337 
Hugh,  Pincerna,  248 
Hunterian  Museum,  the,  38 

,,  ,,         coins  in,    66, 

72,  75,  82,  90, 127,  139,  167,  202, 
227,  251,  288,   295,  301-02,  304, 
307,  310-11,  338,  369,  401,  420, 
429,  437,  464,  467 
Huntingdon,  255,  328.    See  North- 
ampton 
,,          history  and  coins  of, 

219-27 
,,          records  of  coinage  at, 

220,  222 

„          Earls  of,  Hf-nry,  227. 
See    under    North- 
ampton 
Hythe,  173 

I. 

Ilkley,  107 

Inner  circle  on  obverse  of  coins,  74 

Ipswich,  397 

„        history  and  coins  of,  228- 

38 

, ,        records  of  coinage  at,  229- 
30 

J. 

Jenkinson,    F.,    138,     307,     339, 

426 
John,  King,  coinage  of,  15 

K. 

Kent,  Earl  of.     See  Odo 


508 


INDEX. 


L. 

Lacy,  Walter  de,  211 
Lage-men,  258,  261-63,  422 
Lasney,  Hugh,  393,  396 
Lawrence,  F.  G.,  coins  of,  75,  307, 

314 
Lawrence,  L.  A.,  38 

„  ,,      on    the     Barn- 

staple     mint, 
103,  369 

„  ,,       on  migration  of 

moneyers,  200 

,,  „      on  modern  for- 

geries, 75,307, 
314,  437 

„  ,,       coins  of,  56,  59, 

64,  82, 135,  138,  143, 196, 250-61, 
270,  287-89, 291-94, 296-97,  301, 
308-09,  311,  336-37,    339,    359, 
377,  384,  391,  414,  465,  489-90 
Legal  tender,  the  Norman,  13,  20, 

35,  36,  81,  86 

Legends    often  blundered  on  the 
first  type  of  a  new  king  or  cunea- 
tor,  44,  74,  97 
Leicester,  397 

„         history  and  coins  of,  150, 

239-51 
,,        records  of  coinage    at, 

240 
„        records  of  moneyers  at, 

250 

Earls  of,  Robert  Mellent, 

47,    191,  207,  240-46, 

444.     Robert  II,  242- 

50,  399 

Letters,  evolution  of,  on  Henry's 

money,  39-99 
,,        on    the    state    sword    of 

Chester,  147 
Lewes,  122,  404 

,,      history  and  coins   of,    94, 

122,  147,  151,  251-57 
,,      records  of  coinage  at,  252, 

254 

Lichfield,  101 
Lincoln,  7,  145,  239,  250,  321,  408, 

417 

„        name  of,  69,  79.     "  NI- 
COLE" explained,  267- 
68 
,,         history  and  coins  of,  230, 

257-73,  366,  422 

,,         records  of  coinage  at,  258 

,,        records  of  moneyers  at, 

264-65,  268-69 


Lincoln,  bishops  of,  220,  241,  244- 

45.  Alexander,  134,259, 

316.       Remigius,    258. 

Robert,  258-59,  316 
,,         Earl  of,  see  Roumare 
„         battle  of,  349 
„         Fosse  Dyke  at,  259 
Lincoln  and  Son,  coins  of,  138,  202, 
272,  290,  293,  296,  299,  302,  305, 
307,  311,  335,  370,  377,  426, 452, 
466,  468-69,  489 
London,  105,   111,   120,    168,   187, 

261..318,  321 
,,         history  and  coins  of,  273- 

316,  384,  407,  429 
,,         records  of  coinage  at,  28, 

276-79,  284 
,,         records   of  moneyers  at, 

266,  275,  280-81,  283 
„         Institutes  of  Ethelred  II 

concerning  coinage  at, 

277-79 
„         Henry's  charter  to,  284- 

87,  375 
,,        city  gates,  coinage  at  the, 

277-79 
„        Tower  of,  the,  178,  274, 

275 

„         bridge  of,  the,  275 
,,         St.  Bartholomew's  at,  275 
,,         Holy  Trinity  Priory  at, 

194 

„        St.  Paul's  at,  276 
„         Bishops  of,  Gilbert.  275. 

Maurice,  163.    Richard, 

274,  275 

,,         Bishops  of,  had  the  privi- 
lege  of  a  moneyer  at 

Colchester,  161 
, ,         dies  for  the  general  money 

supplied   from,  25,   27, 

28,  473  et  alibi 
Louvel,  Wil.iam,  88 
Lydford,  103-07,  162 

M. 

Macdonald,  G.,  127 

Mackenz  e,  Sheriff,  coins  of,  59,  61, 

269,   304,  314,  469 
Magister  mottetanorum,    407,    458, 

464 
Magnus.   King  of  Norway,    258, 

260-61 

Malconduit,  Robert,  459 
Maldon,  mint  of,  160,  162,  279 
Malmesbury,  mint  of,  407 


INDEX. 


509 


Marlborough,  mint  of,  407 
Mannion,    Robert,    417.      Roger, 

417 

Matilda,  Queen  to  William  I,  122, 
196-97,  211,  342.  Her  lands, 
119-23,  196-97,  397 
Matilda,  Queen  to  Henry  I,  93, 
194,  234,  275,  413,  448.  Her 
rights  at  Norwich,  328-331 
Matilda,  the  Empress,  275,  349, 
372,  416-17,  431,  436.  Her 
dowry,  62,  413,  433,  436,  450. 
Fealty  to,  111,  120,  130,  221, 
236,  275 

Mayenne,  Geoffrey  de,  105 
Mellent,   Robert.      See    Leicester, 

Earls  of 
,,        Waleran,  Earl  of,  242-50, 

431 

Meschines.     See  Chester,  Earls  of 
Michaelmas,  at,  commenced  the  Ex- 
chequer year,  43,  92,  101 
Mint,  the  Royal,  38,  276 

,,  ,,        coins  in,  137, 269, 

270,  296-300, 
303-04,  307, 
325,  466,  468, 
470,  489 

Mints,  Royal,  general  conditions 
of,  1-3,  16-19, 
99,155,169,198, 
212-14,223,262- 
67,  276,  407  et 
abibi 

„  ,,        usually  in  the  city 

gates,  278-79, 
346,  359,  363 

„  Chartered,  general  con- 
ditions of,  1-3, 
18-25,  29,  94-95, 
99,132,147,153- 
54,  182,  360-69, 
481-89  et  alibi 

„  ,,         numberofmoneyers 

usually  reduced 
in,  112  et  alibi 

,,  „        included     in     the 

grant  of  a  town, 
110-11,122,147, 
153  et  alibi 

„  Number  of,  increased 
by  Ethelred  II, 
20 

,,  Names  of,  why  intro- 
duced on  the 
money,  17,  30 
213 

VOL.    I.    FOURTH    SERIES. 


Mints,  Royal,  names  of  .coins  always 

issued  from  the 

places       named 

upon  them,  30 

„      of    Henry    I,     see    Table 

of,  ante 
Mint   marks,  explained,  28,  363- 

65,  376-78 

Minton,  W.,  coin  of,  378 
Monetagium,  14 
Monetarius,  title  of,  266,  353 
Money,  standard  value  of,  198 
,,      Norman,          comparative 

value  of,  5-7 
„       meaning    of    incisions    in 

Henry's,  55,  78,  492 
„      see  Legal -tender 
Moneyers,  royal — tenants  in  eapite, 
general    con- 
ditions of,  1,  17, 
24,    29-30,    254, 
262-67,280,368- 
69,  414,    422,  et 
alibi 
„        „        had  subordinates, 

265,  369 

,,        „        customs  in  Domes- 
day concerning, 
212-14,  216-17, 
331,  et  alibi 
„        ,,        usual  fees  of,  230, 

433 

,,        appointed     annu- 
ally, 459 
„        grantees',  status  of,  3, 

25,29 
,        hereditary,  29 ;  pedigrees 

of,  280-83,  331-32 
,,        apprenticeship    of,    29, 

200-01 

transferred    from  other 
mints,  112,  116,  126, 
200-01,  216,  356-57 
letters  following  names 
of,  explained,  28 1-82, 
338-39 
why  names  of,  on  coins, 

30 
Latinized  names  of,  61, 

66,  69,  et  alibi 
false,  proclamations 
against,  10-12, 
48,  54,  56,  79, 
475-76,  et  alibi 
Inquisition  of  the, 
"37,  65,  69,  78,  80-81,  95 
394,  418,454,461-62,  et  al\b\ 
3   U 


510 


INDEX. 


Moneyers,  false — on  conviction  lost 
their  office,  93 

,,  ,         punishments    of, 

8,  29,  48,    55, 
80-81,  93,  475 
Monnevile,  Nigel  de,  479 
Monograms,  313,  318 
Montacute,  attack  on,  168 
Montfort,  Hugh  de,  197 
Morcar,  Earl,  410 
Morrieson,   Major    H.  W.,    273  ; 

coins  of,  137,  272 
Morton,  Earl  of,  144,  148 
Mounds,  artificial,   102,  239,   260, 

421,  443 
Mowbray,  Geoffrey   de,   see  Cou- 

tances 

,,          Robert  de,  109,  119 
Mule,  coins,  see  under  Types 
Murdoch,  J.  Gr.,  coins  of,  135,  142, 
150,    203,    218,    269,    289,   292, 
308,310,  358,370,  391,  436 

N. 

NA,  as  name  of  mint,  316-18,  359 
NE,  as  name  olmint,  312-13,  316- 

18 
Newcastle,  181-82,  313 

„          records  of  coinage  at, 

182 
Newark  mint,  313,  316-18 

,,       records  of  coinage  at,  316- 

18 

Nicholson,  E.  W.  B.,  117,  353 
NICOL,  see  under  Lincoln 
Nigel,  Joel  fitz,  103 
Norfolk,  Ralph  de  GVuader,  Earl  of, 
211,  214-15,   220,  228-32,   242, 
326 

Norham  Castle,  178 
Normandy,  Robert,   Duke  of,   48, 
51,  52, 120, 174-75,  198,  252-53, 
256,  394,  396,  433,  440,  454,  460 
Northampton,  219,  330 

,,  history  and  coins  of, 

318-26 
,,  records  of  moneyers 

at,  320,  323 

,,  earlsof,  Simon,  222- 

26,  241,  244-45, 
320-21,  344; 
David,  221-27, 
320-23;  Simon  IL, 
221-27 

Northumberland,  moneyers  in,  141, 
181-82 


Northumbria,  Earls  of,  177,  320  ; 

Siward,  219-20 
,,  early  coinage  in,  9, 

481 

, ,  halfpenny    intro- 

duced in,  9 
Norwich,  230,    384,  413,  418,  421, 

425-26 
,,         history    and    coins    of, 

326-39,  378 
,,          records  of  moneyers  at, 

327,  331-32 
,,          Bishop's    privilege      of 

coinage  at,  327-28 
„         Bishops    of,    27,    327; 
Everard,  327 ;  Herbert, 
234,    327,     387,     389, 
413-14 
Nottingham    Castle    Museum,  38, 

348 

„  „     coins  in,  290, 297 

Nottingham,  239 

,,  history  and  coins  of, 

340-51,  484 
,,  records    of    coinage 

at,  341-42 
,,  records  of  mon°yers 

at,  341-42 

,,  account  of  the  find 

of  coins  at,  347- 
49 
,,  the    Trent   fisheries 

at,  341,  343,  350 
„  bridge  at,  340 

Novant,  Roger  de,  103,  105 
Nunant,  Wido  de,  105-07 

0. 

Odo,  Bishop  of  Bayeux,  119,  173- 

75,  274,  379-82 
Odo  of  Winchester,  393,  396 
OF  instead  of  ON  upon  a  coin,  31 
Ogden,  W.  S.,  coin  of,  312 
Oilli,  Robert  d',  352,  431,  434 

„     Robert  (II)  d',  3o2 

„     Nigel  d',  431,  433,  435 
Oman,  C.  W.  C.,  117 
ON,  upon  coins,  its  meaning,  30-31 

,,     sometimes    omitted    or    con- 
tracted, 31,  335,  337 
Ordgar,  citizen  of  London,  304 
Osbert,  Sheriff  of  York,  483-84 
Osbert,  Richard  fitz,  272,  338,  414 
Otto  or  Otho,  see  under  Aurifabri 
Oxford,    94,   318,    404,   418,    425, 

433 


INDEX. 


511 


Oxford,  history  and  coins  of,  351- 

59,  434-35 
,,        records    of    coinage    at, 

352-354 
,,         records  of    moneyers  at, 

318,  320,  323,  353-54, 

357-58 
„        the  New  Hall  at,  352-53, 

356 

„         canal  at,  352 
„         Harding  of,  352 
,,         Wimund,  Prior  of,  352 


P. 

Page,  S.,  237,  247 

„      coins  of,  237,  277,  466 
Passelawe,  Ralph,  389 
PAX  on  coins,  51,  163 
PAXS   type  of  William  I.,    179, 

183 

Paynell,  Ralph,  348 
Peckham,  274 
Peckover,  A.,  336 
Pecunia,   its   Exchequer  meaning, 

179 

Perry.  Dr.  M.,  coin  of,  270 
Peterborough,  219,  383 

, ,  history  and  coins  of, 

230,  360-71,  388, 
397,  487 
„  records    of   coinage 

at,  361-63,  397 
>,  records  of  moneyers 

at,  361,  369 

„  Abbots    of,    369; 

Arnulf,  360,  379 ; 
Godric,  360;  John, 
360-61;  Matthias, 
360  ;  Martin,  361 
„  Anchitel,  priest  of, 

361 

Peverell  family,  the,  192,  340-50 
Pevensey,  94,  204-05,  252,  417 
Pin,  Morin  del,  243,  246-48 
Pipe  Roll,  A.D.  1129-30,  3,  91,158, 
and    see    under    the 
various  mints 
„  records  of  moneyers  in, 

93-94  et  alibi 

Pistres,  Eoger  de,  122,  197 
Plates  of  coins,  inaccuracy  of  old, 

117,  134 

Pomerium,  the,  341 
Pont  de  1'Arche,  William  de,  153, 
157,  406,  456 


Population  of  England  in  Henry's 

reign,  100 
Portraits  on  coins,  9,  87-89 

,,        custom  of  reversing  the 

king's,  38 

Portsmouth,  191,  408,  450 
Profile  types,  their  special  purpose, 
35-38,  69,  81,  86 

R. 

Radumf,  Ailwinus  fitz,  290 
Ralph,  the  Chancellor,  414 
Ralph,  Pincerna,  243,  247-50 
Ramsey,  Abbot  of,  386 
Rashleigh,  J.,  34,  91,  98,  186,  238, 
296,  298,  302-03,  305,  307,  311, 
350,  402,  404,  467 
Reading,  383 

„        history  and  coins  of,  28, 

371-78,  487 
„        records  of  coinage  at,  28, 

373-75 
„        records  of    moneyer   of, 

373-74 

Recto,  writ  de,  115 
Redvers,  Richard  de,  187,  189-92 
,,        Baldwin    de,    187,     189, 

459 

,,        family  of,  188-94 
Revel,  Robert,  319 
Reynolds,    H.   M.,    coins   of,    the 
Dymock  specimen,  127,  304,  390- 
91,  437,  489,491 
Rhuddlan  mint,  147,  492 
RIG,   supposed    mint,    explained, 

378 

Richard  I.,  coinage  of,  15 
Ridel,  Geoffrey,  456 
Rochester,  92,  130 

,,          history    and    coins  of, 

378-84 
„         records  of    coinage  at, 

380-81 
,,          records  of  moneyers  at, 

382-83 

,,          bishops  of,  130.  379-83 
„          Castle  of,  130,  379-80 
,,          bridge  at,  92 
,,          Henry's  statue  at,  88 
Romney,  173-74 

,,        mint  of,  384 
Both,  B.,  coins  of,  238,   270,  288, 

337,  383 

Roumare,  Gerald  de,  398 ;  Roger 
de,  145-46;  Walter  de,  398  ;  Wil- 
liam de,  188,  194,  262,  298-99 


512 


INDEX. 


Bound,  J.  H.,  on  the  Earldom  of 
Gloucester,  24,  120,  125,  199, 
477  ;  the  tertiusdenarhts,  161-62, 
189;  EudoDapifer,  164;  Henry's 
second  marriage,  226  ;  Ipswich, 
232  ;  Plympton  charter,  236, 444, 
486 ;  Leicester,  244,  249 ;  citizens 
of  London,  280  ;  charter  to  Lon- 
don, 284,  375  ;  Savigny  charter, 
330 

Rye,  206 

8. 

Sadd,  A.  H.,  coins  of,   186,  293, 

295,  377,  429,  466 
St.  Edmundsbury,  mint,  230 

,,  history  and  coins 

of,  385-92 

„  records  of  coin- 

age    at,     27, 
387,  389 

Salisbury,  168,  205,  219,408,  450 
„         history  and     coins    of, 

392-402 

,,  bishops  of,  120  ;  Roger, 
80,  352,  373-74,  393, 
397,  440 

Edward  of,  324,  393-400 
Walter  of,  395-401 
Patrick  of,  395 
castle  of,  394-96 
market  at,  394,  448 
Sandwich,  173-74 

„         history   and    coins    of, 

402-05 

„         coins  previously  appro- 
priated to,  390 
Scandinavian     money,     probably 

coined  at  Lincoln,  261 
Sceatta,  the,  481 
Seal,  Henry's  great,  44  ;    see  also 

under  Index  to  Plates 
Shaftesbury,  450 

„  mint  of,  94,  216,  407, 

418,  425,  458 
Sherborne,  101-02,  393 
Ship  service,  customs  of,  103,  114, 
173-75,   197,  206,   252,  255-56, 
404 

"  Short-cross  "  type,  the,  15-16 
Shrewsbury,  152,  417 

,,  mint  of,  94,  191 

,,  Earls  of.  Roger,  122, 

152,  153;  Hugh, 
152,  154 ;  Robert 
de  Beleme,  152-54, 
190,  215,  438-41 


Smith,  S.,  261 ;  coins  of,  337,  339, 

489 

Sorell,  William,  411 
Southampton,  191,  450 

,,  history  and  coins  of, 

323,  405-10,  407 

Southwark  mint  appended  to  Lon- 
don, 277,  407 
„          history  and   coins    of, 

273-316 
,,          money  era    removed    to 

London,  285,  302 
„         St.  Mary's  at,  274 
Spicer,  F.,  135,  357 

„  coins  of,  135,  299,  467, 

470,  490 

Spink  and  Son,  coins  of,    64,    75, 

126,  137,  291,  297-  302,  307,  309, 

313-14,  324,  370,  420,  442,  452, 

465-68 

Stamford,  239,   360-69,  388.      See 

under  Peterborough 
Star,  as  an  ornament  on  coins,  62-63 
Stephen,  coinage  of,  9,  20,  32,  44, 

53,  95,  98,  100  et  alibi 
Stevenson    and  Napier  on   Barn- 
staple,  103 
Styca,  the,  9,  481 

Succession,   Norman    customs    of, 

116,    148,   152,   190, 

211,    226,   235,  242, 

246,  320-21 

,,          to  personal  effects  and 

office,  179,  331 
Sudbury,  418 

„         history  and  coins  of,  409- 

15 
, ,        records  of  coinage  at,  4 1 1- 

14 
,,        records  of   money ers  at, 

266,  413-14 
,,         market  at,  409 
Sun,  the,  on  Edward  IV. 's  money, 

63 

Surrey,  Earl  of,  see  Warren 
Sussex,  Earl  of,  156 

T. 

Taillebois,  Ivo,  258 
Tamworth,  171,  295 

,,          history  and    coins  of, 

409,  415-20,  425 
„          castle  of,  417 
Taunton,  mint,  94 
Tertius  denarius,  the,  its  distinctions, 
161-62,  189,  243 


INDEX. 


513 


Tertius  denarius  of  Barnstaple,  104 
„        ,,        „   Gloucester,  121 
„        „        „   Bristol  ?  120 
„        „        „   Chester,    144, 

146 

,,        „        „   Chichester  ?  152 

„         ,,         ,,  Colchester,    161 

„         „        „  Dover,  173,  175 

„   Exeter,  189, 191, 

194 
„         „         „  Huntingdon, 

220   222 

„         „         „  Ipswich,  228-33 
„        „        ,,  Leicester,     240, 

243 

„        „        ,,  Lewes,  252,  255 
,,         „         „  Lincoln,  258, 262 
,,         ,,         ,,  Norwich,  327 
„         ,,         „  Nottingham,  343 
„  Salisbury,     393, 

395-97 

„         „         „  Thetford,  422 
„         ,,         ..Warwickshire, 
„         „         „       443 
„        „        „  Worcester,  472- 

75 

Tewkesbury,  124-25 
Thetford,  54,  117,  230,  412,  418 
„         history    and    coins    of, 

420-29 
„        records    of    coinage  at, 

421-25 
,,        records  of  money ers  at, 

422,  424,  426,  428 
„         Bishop's  right  of  coinage 

at,  327-28 

„  Fulchard  of,  422 
Thinghoe,  hundred  of,  410 
Tilleul,  Humphrey  de,  204,  206- 

07 

Tinchebrai,  Battle  of,  63,  164,  178, 
184,  192,  207,  241,  253,  344,  398- 
99 

Tiverton,  191 
Totness,  103-07 

„  Joel    fitz    Alfred    de, 

103-07 

Travers,  William,  312,  357 
Treasury,    the    royal,     99,     460- 

61 
Types,    description    of     Henry's, 

42-99 

,,  always  successive,  12, 
13,  16,  22,  23,  34-38, 
94 

chronological  order  of,  42- 
99 


Type, 
75 


Types,  chronological  order  of,  not 
previously  attempted,  3, 
41 

of  Henry  I  believed  to  be 
complete,  34,  94 

reasons  why  some  more 
plentiful,  34,  35,  70,  82, 
95 

average  period  of  issue  of, 
35,  37,  70,  95 

period  of  currency  of, 
limited  by  profile  types, 
35-38,  69,  81,  86 

constant  changes  in,  16 

constant  changes  in,  abo- 
lished by  Henry  II,  15 

of  Stephen's  reign  con- 
fused with  Henry  I's, 
99-100 

"Mule,"  48,  59,  64,  69, 
74,  75,  78,  82,  et  alibi 

"Mule"     explained,    41, 
86,  see  "Table  of   the 
Mints  and  their  Types  " 
a  new,  or  pattern  of  Henry  I, 

U. 

Underditch,  hundred  of,  396 
Uiviet,  Thomas  fitz,  480,  490 

V. 

Valonges,  Peter  de,  265-66 

Vere,  Aubrey  de,  97,  374 

Verity,  J.,  158  ;  coins  of,  151, 158, 
209,  257,  270-71,  287,  292-S6, 
298-300,  304,  306,  315,  324,  838, 
350,  370,  377,  427,  429,  465,  470, 
489 

W. 

Wakeford,  G.,  98 
Waleran,  of  Colchester,  160-61 
Walkelin,  of  Colchester,  160-61 
Wallingford,  84,  195,  418,  425 

,,  history  and  coins  of, 

430-37 

„  records  of  coinage  at, 

430,  432,  434 

,,  records  of  money  ers 

at,  435 
„  Wigod,     Thane     of, 

431,  434 

„  castle  of,  430-31 

Wallis,  G.,  347-48 


514 


INDEX. 


Walters,  F.  A.,  coins  of,  293,  296, 

335,  452 

Waltheof,  see  under  Northampton 
Wareham,  407,  446,  458 

,,          history    and    coins    of, 

437-42 
„         records  of    coinage  at, 

438 
,,         records  of  moneyers  at, 

441,  458 

,,         castle  of,  438,  440 
Warren  family,   Earls  of  Surrey, 

47,  119,  122,  252-56 
Warwick,  409 

,,         history    and    coins    of, 

443-47 
„         records  of  moneyers  at, 

446-47 

,,  Earls  of,  Henry,  240, 
443  ;  Roger,  348,  444- 
46 

„          castle  of,  443 
Waterville,  Hugh  de,  361 
Webster,  W.  J.,  172,  292,  478 
Wells,  110-11 

Wells,  W.  C.,  coins  of,  324,  365 
Westminster  Abbey,  93  ;   see  Lon- 
don 
Whelan,  F.  E.,  coins  of,  311,  464, 

469 

White   Ship,   wreck  of   the,   145, 
148,  229,  234,  394,  399-400,  460, 
477 
White,  John,  justified,  66,  90, 117- 

18 
Whitlingham,  Godwine    of,    422, 

428 

Wight,  Isle  of,  192 
William  I,  coinage  of,  8,  14,  21- 
23,  44,  76,  79,    110 
et  alibi 

„  Tomb  of,  26 

William  II,  coinage  of,  8,  14,  23, 

43,  54,  79,  110  et  alibi 
William,  Prince,  son  of  Henry  I, 

234,  294,  433,  477 
William  Clito,  son  of  Robert  of 

Normandy,  205,  208,  232,  247 
Wilton,  394,  409,  448 

,,       history  and  coins  of,  407, 

448-52 

,,       records  of  coinage  at,  449 
, ,       records  of  moneyers  at,  45 1 


Wilton,  burgesses  of,  451 

,,       fair  at,  448 

Winchester,  25,  120,  121,  123,  168, 
187,  195-96,  220, 
223,  261,  306,  325, 
408, 430, 449 

„          history    and  coins  of, 
151,  407,  439,  453- 
71,  476 
,,          records  of  coinage  at, 

456,  460-61 

„          records    of    moneyers 
at,  407,  457-59,  464 
„  Bishops  of,  92.     Wil- 

liam, 163,  406,  453- 
54,     456.       Henry, 
454 
,,          the  Domesday  of,  455- 

60,  477 

,,          Hyde  Abbey  at,  454 
Winser,  T.  B.,  coins  of,  304,  314 
Woodstock,  92,  408 
Worcester,  the  Victoria  Institute 

at,  38,  218 
Worcester,  116,  417 

,,          history    and   coins  of, 

472-78 
,,          records  of  coinage  at, 

27,  472-73 

„  Bishops  of ,  Aldred,  472 ; 

Samson,     473,     475 ; 
Simon,      372,      473 ; 
Theowulf,  473 
„  Castle  of,  473 


Y. 

York,  187,  220,  235,  261 

,,      history  and  coins  of,    141, 

478-91 
„       records  of  coinage  at,  479, 

482-88 

„  Archbishops  of,  Gerard,  212, 
479,  482-85  ;  Thomas, 
479,  484  ;  Thurstan,  479- 
80,  485-88 

„       Turgis,  collector  of,  480-87 
„       guild  of  merchants  at,  480, 

490 

,,       castle  of,  479 
Young,  Dr.,  127 
Young,  J.,  coins  of,  292,  310 


INDEX.  515 

INDEX  TO  PLATES. 

Plate 

I.  Page  44.  The  example  illustrated  is,  however,  of  later  date  than 
that  referred  to  in  the  letter-press,  being  an  impression  of 
Henry's  third,  or  perhaps  fourth,  seal. 

II.  Nos.  1  =  135.  2  =  287.  3  =  384.  4  =  257.  5  =  295.  6  = 
291.  7  =  428.  8  =  369.  9  =  227.  10  =  237.  11  =  452. 
12  =  429.  13  =  467.  14  =  136. 

III.  Nos.  1  =  291.     2  =  293.     3  =  469.     4  =  471.     5  =  301.     6  = 

429.     7  =  291.     8  =  301.     9  =  467.     10=309. 

IV.  Nos.  1  =  311.      2  =  428.      3  =  467.     4  =  471.     5  =  308.     6  = 

426.     7  =  307.     8  =  442.     9  =  308.     10  =  158.     11=305. 

V.  Nos.  1=469.  2  =  314.  3  =  311.  4  =  289.  5  =  308.  6  = 
158.  7  =  478.  8  =  427.  9=302.  10=336.  11  =  150. 
12  =  127. 

VI.  Nos.  1  =  289.  2  =  271.  3  =  290.  4  =  210.  5  =  336.  6  = 
272.  7  =  134.  8  =  302.  9  =  271.  10  =  436.  11  =  292. 

VII.  Nos.  1  =  391.  2  =  447.  3  =  126.  4  =  293.  5  =  306  6  = 
142.  7  =  293.  8  =  218.  9  =  358.  10  =  309.  11  =  203. 
12=  138. 

VIII.  Nos.  1  =  442.      2  =  420.     3  =  390.     4  =  250.     5  =  350.     6  = 
452.     7  =  315.     8  =  442.     9  =  315.     10  =  297 


END   OF    VOL.    I. 


PRINTEH   BY    H.  VIRTUE  ADD   COMPANY,   LIMITED,   CITY   ROAD,  LOJCDOM. 


C/iron  S'er.SKVot 


TYPE     I 

(HAWKINS    251  ) 


TYPE    II 

(HAWKINS  254) 


TY  PE   IV 

(HAWKINS    252) 


TYPE    IV 

(HAWKINS    252) 


TYPE    VI 

(HAWKINS    257) 


TYPE    VII 

(HAWKINS    26?) 


TYPE   XI 

(HAWKINS    iv) 


TYPE  VII 

(HAWKINS  257) 


TYPE    XII 

(HAWKINS     258) 


COINS     OF    HENRY    I. 


GJ 

1 

N6 

ser.4- 
v.l 


The  Numismatic  chronicle 
and  journal  of  the  Royal 
Numismatic  Society 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY